Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Your stupid question was answered thrice by myself and several times by others. If you can't read, that's your problem.
Twice I linked you to information on M-Theory. I also mentioned the Lambda-Colt model, which some others adhere to.
I also mentioned how, according to L-C, the sum of the universe is zero and the relevant appearance and disappearance of 'virtual particles' that has been observed.
Learn to read.
In other words: you're giving a different meaning and definition to an established term.No, I am applying a terminology to a concept that goes beyond that promoted by the religious community.
Yes, it is your "right" to make up definitions and then apply them to previously defined terms, thereby allowing yourself to encompass the ideas of ancient philosophers into the term despite the fact that they have never supported the original meaning of the term. Poor communication and making up definitions is your "right". Just don't expect people to agree with things when you make them up.It is as much my right to use the term of "intelligent design" as a reasonable term to explain the philosophy of Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Spinoza, Einstein et al, none of which were in any way 'religious', as it is for you to see it as only as a religious definition.
Once again: science doesn't give a crap about faith. It is not a science teacher's job to teach things without a lick of supporting evidence. There is no reason to dismiss ID anymore than to dismiss the tooth fairy or the flying spaghetti monster, but there is similarly no reason to acknowledge these unsupported fairy tails in a scientific classroom either. If that lack of acknowledgment blows your faith, I recommend home schooling your children so you can offer your own form of ignorance directly.My point is that I.D. is not science and should not be included in the science curriculum. But neither is there any basis to dismiss it as a reasonable explanation for how things are the way they are.
And going further beyond my point to my purpose in makiing it: I object to any science curriculum that presumes to discount I.D. as a reasonable explanation and thereby presume to attack or destroy the faith of children. Science can quite competently be taught without doing that.
Actually, ID and evolution ARE mutually exclusive. Either evolution is driven by natural selection, OR all animals were specifically designed by some magical creator and placed on the Earth as they currently are. The ID movement was born as a plot to discredit and spread false rumors about evolution. This is the very foundation of "Intelligent Design". Don't go backpedaling now and claim they can be cooperative ideas. RELIGION and SCIENCE can be cooperative. One can believe in god and evolution, certainly, but ID and evolution are mutually exclusive.And I reject that as I and millions of others accept I.D. AND natural selection. One is not exclusive of the other.
Once again you are making broad sweeping generalizations with absolutely no supporting evidence or even a scrap of logic. IF a creator designed the universe and its atoms, and even the first life form on the planet, evolution without a creator can still exist. You can claim the creator "designed" natural selection if that makes you feel better at night, but ID and evolution are mutually exclusive.My opinion that if there is indeed a "Creator" behind intelligent design, such Creator would also be the author of science and therefore the author of natural selection. Again I have no quarrel with natural selection as a scientific theory. I have taught the concept myself in the classroom. I have written and can write a pretty darn good paper on the concept from memory. And, in my opinion, it has no quarrel whatsoever with intelligent design.
no. i find it completely absurd to hijack a term whose progenitors have defined one way, and then propose that it has a different meaning and different application. if i were to claim that the laws of conservation of energy and matter were a new way of approaching ecology and insist that it had implications in the reduction of waste and unplugging appliances when not in use, i would be a [removed due to potential for disrespect]. if i insisted that its my right to do so, i would be a stubborn [removed due to potential for disrespect]. that right doesn't support the dialectics on the matter. it defies the fact that the philosophers preceding you on which you base your defense of ID, didn't use the term or agree with the fundamentals of it before your revision.No, I am applying a terminology to a concept that goes beyond that promoted by the religious community. You have to understand that I am an avid anti-political correctness type and refuse to allow anybody to make an incorrect assumption about what I mean when I use any term or dictate to me what the definition of an ambiguous term must be. It is as much my right to use the term of "intelligent design" as a reasonable term to explain the philosophy of Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Spinoza, Einstein et al, none of which were in any way 'religious', as it is for you to see it as only as a religious definition. We might also mean different things when we use terms like 'recism' or 'religious' or 'fanatical' too.
But we don't have to disrespect each other when we disagree on the definition.
That question has been answered over and over again and IGNORED by you over and over again.You seem to be hung up on the concept of I.D. = creationism
It is. Unless you think your 'intelligent designer' came about after that which you credit it for designing.
In this discussion I have made no assumptions about who or what the 'intelligent designer' is or how it all came about. I have been very careful not to do that.
But I'll ask you the same question others have refused to answer.
Where did all the stuff that exists in the universe come from? What was the origin. Did it all appear from nothing? Does something coming from nothing not fly in the face of all scientific theory?
However, if the religious can believe in a God that has no beginning and no end, it seems reasonable that science can believe in matter that has no beginning and no end. And Spinoza, Einstein, et al, are not unreasonable in discerning a system, pattern, and purpose in nature that just doesn't mesh with it all occurring due to pure chance.
Something coming from nothing does not fly in the face of all scientific THEORY, it flies in the face of scientific LAW!!! Specifically the FIRST LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS!!!!!!!!
The FLoT says energy cannot be created or destroyed!!!!
Yes. Emphasis on the qualifier "ignorant" to describe him and "people like [him]". He has tried his darndest to keep his religion out of this thread, going to great lengths not to mention it and flat out claiming he hasn't spoken about it. So once again we find YOU making the assumption that ignorant people = Christianity. Actually I take that back. To reach that conclusion, you had to ASSUME he was Christian, THEN you had to ASSUME Christians were ignorant. In fact, I was simply pointing out ignorant people believe things they can't explain are proof of a deity. This is and has been factually accurate since the first time I've said it.
So there are athiests who believe in a "Creator"?
Went back. Pointed out where you're still wrong. Don't care about capitalization. No, it has nothing to do with being "dishonest" or a "liar" or making a "mistake" or even being disrespectful. It just doesn't matter to me, and the meaning of the word is still just as relevant, proven by the fact that you still understand what I'm saying. Sometimes I do, sometimes I don't, and it has nothing to do with ANYTHING we're talking about.Just asking you to go back and look is all. And reminding you that if you use the word God with a capital 'G' with your nonsense I will no longer take it as an innocent little mistake.
Damn you are stubborn!'In this discussion I have made no assumptions about who or what the 'intelligent designer' is or how it all came about.
To design, your designer must exist before it designs, yet along before its design is realized. This necessarily places it outside the universe you assume your 'unmoved mover' or 'uncaused causation' designed. This places it squarely in the realm of the supernatural, in the real of deity.
Not necessarily. Plato's concept was that it has all always been here. The "idea" of rock. The "idea" of dog. The "idea" of tree. A cosmic 'mind' or intelligence for lack of a better word to describe it. And though he never fully developed his concept of I.D., I think that's pretty much how Einstein most likely perceived it too.
Again let's look at my post in its full context:
In this discussion I have made no assumptions about who or what the 'intelligent designer' is or how it all came about. I have been very careful not to do that.
But I'll ask you the same question others have refused to answer.
Where did all the stuff that exists in the universe come from? What was the origin. Did it all appear from nothing? Does something coming from nothing not fly in the face of all scientific theory?
However, if the religious can believe in a God that has no beginning and no end, it seems reasonable that science can believe in matter that has no beginning and no end. And Spinoza, Einstein, et al, are not unreasonable in discerning a system, pattern, and purpose in nature that just doesn't mesh with it all occurring due to pure chance.
So again I ask, where did all the stuff that exists in the universe come from? What was the origin? Did it all appear from nothing? And what force set it all into motion to produce the universe that we now have?
I'm hoping that if I ask the question of enough people, somebody will finally have the guts to say they don't know. And because they don't know, that leaves the door open for all sorts of possibilities.
no. i find it completely absurd to hijack a term whose progenitors have defined one way, and then propose that it has a different meaning and different application. if i were to claim that the laws of conservation of energy and matter were a new way of approaching ecology and insist that it had implications in the reduction of waste and unplugging appliances when not in use, i would be a [removed due to potential for disrespect]. if i insisted that its my right to do so, i would be a stubborn [removed due to potential for disrespect]. that right doesn't support the dialectics on the matter. it defies the fact that the philosophers preceding you on which you base your defense of ID, didn't use the term or agree with the fundamentals of it before your revision.No, I am applying a terminology to a concept that goes beyond that promoted by the religious community. You have to understand that I am an avid anti-political correctness type and refuse to allow anybody to make an incorrect assumption about what I mean when I use any term or dictate to me what the definition of an ambiguous term must be. It is as much my right to use the term of "intelligent design" as a reasonable term to explain the philosophy of Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Spinoza, Einstein et al, none of which were in any way 'religious', as it is for you to see it as only as a religious definition. We might also mean different things when we use terms like 'recism' or 'religious' or 'fanatical' too.
But we don't have to disrespect each other when we disagree on the definition.
There is no such thing as an "anti-religious educator". There are religious educators, and there are people who don't care about unsupported claims, yours being one of them. It has nothing to do with being against religion, as most teachers are religious, so much as not teaching unfounded garbage in the classroom. There are a myriad of unsupported ideas in the world. Yours is no better than the rest.Most of those were like me who felt Creationism had no place in the Science curriculum. But we also do not wish to give license to anti-religious educators to dismiss the idea of intelligent design altogether as we consider that equally bad science.
Why try to classify them at all? Why not just quote them for what they said instead of squeezing the context into a completely different meaning?If you don't like applying the tern "Intelligent Design" to say Spinoza's or Einstein's theories, what term would you use instead?
Still false. I negged you because you aren't mature enough to stay in a conversation when the questions being asked of you clearly tear down your entire argument, resulting in you needing to ignore such questions and the people asking them. I had been disagreeing with your stupidity for a long while. I only negged you when you decided to put your fingers in your ears and stop responding to the arguments you didn't like. Please stop crying about this already. It's just a neg.JBeukema and SmarterthanHick have both now neg repped me for not being willing to agree with them.
this is how i understand the term's etymology in the context of science, too. this modification is the central and stickiest use of the term, however, and like the impact of einstein's conservation, antagon's conservation proposed above, has a long way to go before it's useful in a conversation. worse yet, you're using ID in the same context as originally proposed.no. i find it completely absurd to hijack a term whose progenitors have defined one way, and then propose that it has a different meaning and different application. if i were to claim that the laws of conservation of energy and matter were a new way of approaching ecology and insist that it had implications in the reduction of waste and unplugging appliances when not in use, i would be a [removed due to potential for disrespect]. if i insisted that its my right to do so, i would be a stubborn [removed due to potential for disrespect]. that right doesn't support the dialectics on the matter. it defies the fact that the philosophers preceding you on which you base your defense of ID, didn't use the term or agree with the fundamentals of it before your revision.No, I am applying a terminology to a concept that goes beyond that promoted by the religious community. You have to understand that I am an avid anti-political correctness type and refuse to allow anybody to make an incorrect assumption about what I mean when I use any term or dictate to me what the definition of an ambiguous term must be. It is as much my right to use the term of "intelligent design" as a reasonable term to explain the philosophy of Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Spinoza, Einstein et al, none of which were in any way 'religious', as it is for you to see it as only as a religious definition. We might also mean different things when we use terms like 'recism' or 'religious' or 'fanatical' too.
But we don't have to disrespect each other when we disagree on the definition.
Well actually the term "Intelligent Design" was modified and its meaning shifted to get away from strictly a "Creator" designed concept and this was mostly by the same religious folks who originally identified it with a Creator.
i think the idea of intelligent design is bad science in itself for the implications which i characterized as corrosive to scientific method earlier. apart from a primer on scientific method, scientific philosophy isn't too central to sciences until it's explored in-depth in university. at that level, approaches to exploration are tackled, like reductionism vs holistics, and the value and application of each. what could ID afford science, whatsoever?Most of those were like me who felt Creationism had no place in the Science curriculum. But we also do not wish to give license to anti-religious educators to dismiss the idea of intelligent design altogether as we consider that equally bad science.
deism or spinoza's deism, einstein's deism.If you don't like applying the tern "Intelligent Design" to say Spinoza's or Einstein's theories, what term would you use instead?
you're welcome.By the way, I have very much appreciated the quality of your arguments here even though I can't agree with all of them. JBeukema and SmarterthanHick have both now neg repped me for not being willing to agree with them. It is reassuring to know that there are at least one or two folks capable of carrying on a grown up discussion exploring all facets of the controversy.
this is how i understand the term's etymology in the context of science, too. this modification is the central and stickiest use of the term, however, and like the impact of einstein's conservation, antagon's conservation proposed above, has a long way to go before it's useful in a conversation. worse yet, you're using ID in the same context as originally proposed.no. i find it completely absurd to hijack a term whose progenitors have defined one way, and then propose that it has a different meaning and different application. if i were to claim that the laws of conservation of energy and matter were a new way of approaching ecology and insist that it had implications in the reduction of waste and unplugging appliances when not in use, i would be a [removed due to potential for disrespect]. if i insisted that its my right to do so, i would be a stubborn [removed due to potential for disrespect]. that right doesn't support the dialectics on the matter. it defies the fact that the philosophers preceding you on which you base your defense of ID, didn't use the term or agree with the fundamentals of it before your revision.
Well actually the term "Intelligent Design" was modified and its meaning shifted to get away from strictly a "Creator" designed concept and this was mostly by the same religious folks who originally identified it with a Creator.
i think the idea of intelligent design is bad science in itself for the implications which i characterized as corrosive to scientific method earlier. apart from a primer on scientific method, scientific philosophy isn't too central to sciences until it's explored in-depth in university. at that level, approaches to exploration are tackled, like reductionism vs holistics, and the value and application of each. what could ID afford science, whatsoever?
deism or spinoza's deism, einstein's deism.If you don't like applying the tern "Intelligent Design" to say Spinoza's or Einstein's theories, what term would you use instead?
you're welcome.By the way, I have very much appreciated the quality of your arguments here even though I can't agree with all of them. JBeukema and SmarterthanHick have both now neg repped me for not being willing to agree with them. It is reassuring to know that there are at least one or two folks capable of carrying on a grown up discussion exploring all facets of the controversy.
No you're still convoluting what I'm saying to suggest that I think I.D. by anybody's definition belongs in a science curriculum. I have not and do not make that argument and in fact have strongly argued that I.D., by whatever defintiion, has no place in a science curriculum. Honest assessment of my argument must include that fact as it is critical within the debate.
Foxfyre said:we also do not wish to give license to anti-religious educators to dismiss the idea of intelligent design altogether as we consider that equally bad science
Either something is or is not in the classroom. You don't want ID in the classroom and yet you don't want it dismissed. How do you reconcile the contradictory nature of that argument? Besides, you can't really dismiss something you don't acknowledge in the first place.Foxfyre said:neither is there any basis to dismiss it as a reasonable explanation for how things are the way they are
Unfortunately for you, the parameters and definition of ID has already been set. Perhaps you need a new term to better encompass your distinct form of crazy. His definition is the standard definition of the word, which anyone can look up on wikipedia or cheap online dictionaries. Your definition is something you made up in your head recently that has no relation to the actual meaning of the term. Similarly, I don't go defining evolution as "the process made by the flying spaghetti monster to make stuff". A definition is already established for that word, REGARDLESS OF WHAT I WANT IT TO BE. Perhaps you need some help with the basics of human communication.And however 'sticky' is the definition of Intelligent Design, it really comes down to who gets to set the parameter of the definition doesn't it. You reject my definition. I reject yours as the only way to look at I.D. I believe my point of view is more broad minded and less prejudicial than yours, but I won't fault you for your definition. I will fault you for not allowing me mine.
i based that assessment on this statement about educators, which i assumed was a science educator with an onus to promote 'good science':No you're still convoluting what I'm saying to suggest that I think I.D. by anybody's definition belongs in a science curriculum. I have not and do not make that argument and in fact have strongly argued that I.D., by whatever defintiion, has no place in a science curriculum. Honest assessment of my argument must include that fact as it is critical within the debate.
if a student proposes that intelligent design is involved or coincidental to chemistry, even in a way which lent no identity to the designer, or that implied that there was any input or creation, i would argue that a teacher ought to dismiss that component from the parameters of a well-crafted examination of the subject, and wont be anti-religious for doing so. any reflection on the amazement which science and our universe inspires, whether that lends to a conclusion of God's hand, a designer's [insert interaction here] or, for some, the stark absence of deity, isn't really good science, and educators should work to purge this input from the study. it is superfluous and god or no-god, nothing changes in science or the subject.we also do not wish to give license to anti-religious educators to dismiss the idea of intelligent design altogether as we consider that equally bad science
Deism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaDeism (pronounced /ˈdiːɪzəm/, us dict: dē′·ĭzm) in the philosophy of religion is the standpoint that reason and observation of the natural world, without the need for either faith or organized religion, can determine that a supreme being created the universe. Further the term often implies that this supreme being does not intervene in human affairs or suspend the natural laws of the universe.
I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings.
Exactly. I mean, what's the multiple choice question on that one?if a student proposes that intelligent design is involved or coincidental to chemistry, even in a way which lent no identity to the designer, or that implied that there was any input or creation, i would argue that a teacher ought to dismiss that component from the parameters of a well-crafted examination of the subject, and wont be anti-religious for doing so. any reflection on the amazement which science and our universe inspires, whether that lends to a conclusion of God's hand, a designer's [insert interaction here] or, for some, the stark absence of deity, isn't really good science, and educators should work to purge this input from the study. it is superfluous and god or no-god, nothing changes in science or the subject.
(Just teasing.) My comment about science relates to those teachers who would teach as some of the anti-religion folks here would teach: God is a myth, intelligent design is a myth, and neither have any place in the scheme of things. It is foolish to even think that. And yes, there are professors--usually more at the university level than at the general education level--who would say that in the classroom.
