Who honestly doesn't belive in intelligent design?

[antagon]

Antagon, you're making this much more difficult than it has to be. The science teacher appropriately teaches good science, period. He does not include I.D. in the science curriculum because I think all of us are agreed that it does not belong there. But neither does he TEACH that there is no such thing as I.D. because he has no way to demonstrate or draw that conclusion other than from his own prejudices.

The teacher, if he is a good teacher, will point out those areas of science that we cannot yet explain. If he is so inclined, and if he is a good teacher, he can explain the various theories out there to fill in those gaps in our knowledge and I.D. is one that many people do believe. But he does not teach it as science. It is not science. He explains that it is not science. And if he choose not to bring the subject up and a student does, he tells the student or class the exact same thing. Billions believe it but it cannot yet be scientifically tested and therefore it will not be in the science curriculum.

In other words, it is a piss poor teacher who would presume that the science we have is all the science that we will ever have to know. And it is an evil person who would presume to destroy the faith of another person.

rather than making anything difficult, i flatly disagree with what you contend. to start with, the evil might be at the hand of those who have informed a child's belief in something which juxtaposes their faith with the facts of the world we live in. our ideas on good teaching and bad in the sciences vary, but so do good and bad teachers. i guess that's a fact of life, too.

i see ID as an opportunity for a good teacher to explain what science is for a kid who's got as far and not picked that up. to any extent which something is a observation of fact, science can inform them about the implications by examining causation and effect, conforming with other facts we've observed. good science is about searching for answers in this manner, not filling gaps with arbitrary theories. unlike religious beliefs in deity which are commonly seated in faith, ID (unless you have yet again altered or diluted convention on the definition) seats these beliefs in science or the subjects of science. because science cannot support an arbitrary theory without cause effect and conformity, ID or a claim that science empowers atheism is an opportunity to set a student straight on what nature implies in the context of science.

billions dont believe in ID. you'd have to take your rose-tinting of the conventional use of the term far further to capture that many subscribers.

 

[Foxfyre]

Antagon, you're making this much more difficult than it has to be. The science teacher appropriately teaches good science, period. He does not include I.D. in the science curriculum because I think all of us are agreed that it does not belong there. But neither does he TEACH that there is no such thing as I.D. because he has no way to demonstrate or draw that conclusion other than from his own prejudices.

The teacher, if he is a good teacher, will point out those areas of science that we cannot yet explain. If he is so inclined, and if he is a good teacher, he can explain the various theories out there to fill in those gaps in our knowledge and I.D. is one that many people do believe. But he does not teach it as science. It is not science. He explains that it is not science. And if he choose not to bring the subject up and a student does, he tells the student or class the exact same thing. Billions believe it but it cannot yet be scientifically tested and therefore it will not be in the science curriculum.

In other words, it is a piss poor teacher who would presume that the science we have is all the science that we will ever have to know. And it is an evil person who would presume to destroy the faith of another person.

rather than making anything difficult, i flatly disagree with what you contend. to start with, the evil might be at the hand of those who have informed a child's belief in something which juxtaposes their faith with the facts of the world we live in. our ideas on good teaching and bad in the sciences vary, but so do good and bad teachers. i guess that's a fact of life, too.

i see ID as an opportunity for a good teacher to explain what science is for a kid who's got as far and not picked that up. to any extent which something is a observation of fact, science can inform them about the implications by examining causation and effect, conforming with other facts we've observed. good science is about searching for answers in this manner, not filling gaps with arbitrary theories. unlike religious beliefs in deity which are commonly seated in faith, ID (unless you have yet again altered or diluted convention on the definition) seats these beliefs in science or the subjects of science. because science cannot support an arbitrary theory without cause effect and conformity, ID or a claim that science empowers atheism is an opportunity to set a student straight on what nature implies in the context of science.

billions dont believe in ID. you'd have to take your rose-tinting of the conventional use of the term far further to capture that many subscribers.

If I had any power in the school system you teach in, you would not be speaking against any religious beliefs or suggesting that they were 'fairy tales' or some such in the classroom or in school related activities. If you insisted on doing so, you would be removed from your position.

If you insist that good science be taught, I can insist that ONLY science be taught. And what the students believe as a matter of religion, spirituality, etc. are absolutely off limits. The teacher can acknowledge that billions believe in I.D.--we can verify that--you cannot verify that billions do not believe in I.D. The teacher should not suggest in any way that I.D. is science or include it as science in the lesson plan, but neither should he mess with the student's faith.

I would have no business trying to dissuade you or anybody else from anti-religious beliefs either, and if you brought them up in my classroom, I would acknowledge that yes, many people do not accept any form of I.D.

It is not within the scope of your job description or any of your business as a teacher to discuss whether a student's religious beliefs were a bad thing, and you would be WAY off base to do so. The only way that should become an issue if the student was acting out his/her religious beliefs in a way that was inappropriate or detrimental to other students.

 

[Bill Angel]

Antagon, you're making this much more difficult than it has to be. The science teacher appropriately teaches good science, period. He does not include I.D. in the science curriculum because I think all of us are agreed that it does not belong there. But neither does he TEACH that there is no such thing as I.D. because he has no way to demonstrate or draw that conclusion other than from his own prejudices.

The teacher, if he is a good teacher, will point out those areas of science that we cannot yet explain. If he is so inclined, and if he is a good teacher, he can explain the various theories out there to fill in those gaps in our knowledge and I.D. is one that many people do believe. But he does not teach it as science. It is not science. He explains that it is not science. And if he choose not to bring the subject up and a student does, he tells the student or class the exact same thing. Billions believe it but it cannot yet be scientifically tested and therefore it will not be in the science curriculum.

In other words, it is a piss poor teacher who would presume that the science we have is all the science that we will ever have to know. And it is an evil person who would presume to destroy the faith of another person.

rather than making anything difficult, i flatly disagree with what you contend. to start with, the evil might be at the hand of those who have informed a child's belief in something which juxtaposes their faith with the facts of the world we live in. our ideas on good teaching and bad in the sciences vary, but so do good and bad teachers. i guess that's a fact of life, too.

i see ID as an opportunity for a good teacher to explain what science is for a kid who's got as far and not picked that up. to any extent which something is a observation of fact, science can inform them about the implications by examining causation and effect, conforming with other facts we've observed. good science is about searching for answers in this manner, not filling gaps with arbitrary theories. unlike religious beliefs in deity which are commonly seated in faith, ID (unless you have yet again altered or diluted convention on the definition) seats these beliefs in science or the subjects of science. because science cannot support an arbitrary theory without cause effect and conformity, ID or a claim that science empowers atheism is an opportunity to set a student straight on what nature implies in the context of science.

billions dont believe in ID. you'd have to take your rose-tinting of the conventional use of the term far further to capture that many subscribers.

If I had any power in the school system you teach in, you would not be speaking against any religious beliefs or suggesting that they were 'fairy tales' or some such in the classroom or in school related activities. If you insisted on doing so, you would be removed from your position.

If you insist that good science be taught, I can insist that ONLY science be taught. And what the students believe as a matter of religion, spirituality, etc. are absolutely off limits. The teacher can acknowledge that billions believe in I.D.--we can verify that--you cannot verify that billions do not believe in I.D. The teacher should not suggest in any way that I.D. is science or include it as science in the lesson plan, but neither should he mess with the student's faith.

I would have no business trying to dissuade you or anybody else from anti-religious beliefs either, and if you brought them up in my classroom, I would acknowledge that yes, many people do not accept any form of I.D.

It is not within the scope of your job description or any of your business as a teacher to discuss whether a student's religious beliefs were a bad thing, and you would be WAY off base to do so. The only way that should become an issue if the student was acting out his/her religious beliefs in a way that was inappropriate or detrimental to other students.

A number of aspects of American political policy were driven by faith based perceptions of reality. In particular I am thinking of the concept of "Manifest Destiny" , which has been
characterized as:

"Manifest Destiny was the 19th century American belief that the United States (often in the ethnically specific form of the "Anglo-Saxon race") was destined to expand across the North American continent, from the Atlantic seaboard to the Pacific Ocean. It was used by Democrats in the 1840s to justify the war with Mexico; the concept was denounced by Whigs, and fell into disuse after the mid 1850s."
See: Manifest Destiny - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I think that belief in "Manifest Destiny" and "Intelligent Design" are associated. I doubt that a 19th century American citizen would believe in the first without also believing in the second: i.e that man was created for a purpose, and "Manifest Destiny" is an expression of one of the purposes that the Creator (God) brought forth the nation of America. I also think that Zionism is a faith based form of Manifest Destiny.

So when one discusses what science teachers should teach, should not that discussion be broadened to also include what it is appropriate for POLITICAL scientists to discuss in the classroom?

 

[Foxfyre]

rather than making anything difficult, i flatly disagree with what you contend. to start with, the evil might be at the hand of those who have informed a child's belief in something which juxtaposes their faith with the facts of the world we live in. our ideas on good teaching and bad in the sciences vary, but so do good and bad teachers. i guess that's a fact of life, too.

i see ID as an opportunity for a good teacher to explain what science is for a kid who's got as far and not picked that up. to any extent which something is a observation of fact, science can inform them about the implications by examining causation and effect, conforming with other facts we've observed. good science is about searching for answers in this manner, not filling gaps with arbitrary theories. unlike religious beliefs in deity which are commonly seated in faith, ID (unless you have yet again altered or diluted convention on the definition) seats these beliefs in science or the subjects of science. because science cannot support an arbitrary theory without cause effect and conformity, ID or a claim that science empowers atheism is an opportunity to set a student straight on what nature implies in the context of science.

billions dont believe in ID. you'd have to take your rose-tinting of the conventional use of the term far further to capture that many subscribers.

If I had any power in the school system you teach in, you would not be speaking against any religious beliefs or suggesting that they were 'fairy tales' or some such in the classroom or in school related activities. If you insisted on doing so, you would be removed from your position.

If you insist that good science be taught, I can insist that ONLY science be taught. And what the students believe as a matter of religion, spirituality, etc. are absolutely off limits. The teacher can acknowledge that billions believe in I.D.--we can verify that--you cannot verify that billions do not believe in I.D. The teacher should not suggest in any way that I.D. is science or include it as science in the lesson plan, but neither should he mess with the student's faith.

I would have no business trying to dissuade you or anybody else from anti-religious beliefs either, and if you brought them up in my classroom, I would acknowledge that yes, many people do not accept any form of I.D.

It is not within the scope of your job description or any of your business as a teacher to discuss whether a student's religious beliefs were a bad thing, and you would be WAY off base to do so. The only way that should become an issue if the student was acting out his/her religious beliefs in a way that was inappropriate or detrimental to other students.

A number of aspects of American political policy were driven by faith based perceptions of reality. In particular I am thinking of the concept of "Manifest Destiny" , which has been
characterized as:

"Manifest Destiny was the 19th century American belief that the United States (often in the ethnically specific form of the "Anglo-Saxon race") was destined to expand across the North American continent, from the Atlantic seaboard to the Pacific Ocean. It was used by Democrats in the 1840s to justify the war with Mexico; the concept was denounced by Whigs, and fell into disuse after the mid 1850s."
See: Manifest Destiny - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I think that belief in "Manifest Destiny" and "Intelligent Design" are associated. I doubt that a 19th century American citizen would believe in the first without also believing in the second: i.e that man was created for a purpose, and "Manifest Destiny" is an expression of one of the purposes that the Creator (God) brought forth the nation of America. I also think that Zionism is a faith based form of Manifest Destiny.

So when one discusses what science teachers should teach, should not that discussion be broadened to also include what it is appropriate for POLITICAL scientists to discuss in the classroom?

It is as foolish to remove religious history from the total history of the country and the world as it would be to remove Darwin's theory from the science curriculum. Americans are by and large spiritual and/or religious people and religion has played a huge role in the development of our laws, customs, ethics, and culture as a people. That history would of course include the debates over abortion, Intelligent Design, conscientious objectors, etc. etc.

My interest in education is to ensure that accurate and appropriate material is included in the curriculum and that the teachers teach the facts impartially and without prejudice. I do not want education to be indoctrination of anybody's preconceived notions about anything. I do want education to give students sufficient information about all aspects necessary to arrive at informed opinions.

 

[antagon]

Antagon, you're making this much more difficult than it has to be. The science teacher appropriately teaches good science, period. He does not include I.D. in the science curriculum because I think all of us are agreed that it does not belong there. But neither does he TEACH that there is no such thing as I.D. because he has no way to demonstrate or draw that conclusion other than from his own prejudices.

The teacher, if he is a good teacher, will point out those areas of science that we cannot yet explain. If he is so inclined, and if he is a good teacher, he can explain the various theories out there to fill in those gaps in our knowledge and I.D. is one that many people do believe. But he does not teach it as science. It is not science. He explains that it is not science. And if he choose not to bring the subject up and a student does, he tells the student or class the exact same thing. Billions believe it but it cannot yet be scientifically tested and therefore it will not be in the science curriculum.

In other words, it is a piss poor teacher who would presume that the science we have is all the science that we will ever have to know. And it is an evil person who would presume to destroy the faith of another person.

rather than making anything difficult, i flatly disagree with what you contend. to start with, the evil might be at the hand of those who have informed a child's belief in something which juxtaposes their faith with the facts of the world we live in. our ideas on good teaching and bad in the sciences vary, but so do good and bad teachers. i guess that's a fact of life, too.

i see ID as an opportunity for a good teacher to explain what science is for a kid who's got as far and not picked that up. to any extent which something is a observation of fact, science can inform them about the implications by examining causation and effect, conforming with other facts we've observed. good science is about searching for answers in this manner, not filling gaps with arbitrary theories. unlike religious beliefs in deity which are commonly seated in faith, ID (unless you have yet again altered or diluted convention on the definition) seats these beliefs in science or the subjects of science. because science cannot support an arbitrary theory without cause effect and conformity, ID or a claim that science empowers atheism is an opportunity to set a student straight on what nature implies in the context of science.

billions dont believe in ID. you'd have to take your rose-tinting of the conventional use of the term far further to capture that many subscribers.

If I had any power in the school system you teach in, you would not be speaking against any religious beliefs or suggesting that they were 'fairy tales' or some such in the classroom or in school related activities. If you insisted on doing so, you would be removed from your position.

If you insist that good science be taught, I can insist that ONLY science be taught. And what the students believe as a matter of religion, spirituality, etc. are absolutely off limits. The teacher can acknowledge that billions believe in I.D.--we can verify that--you cannot verify that billions do not believe in I.D. The teacher should not suggest in any way that I.D. is science or include it as science in the lesson plan, but neither should he mess with the student's faith.

I would have no business trying to dissuade you or anybody else from anti-religious beliefs either, and if you brought them up in my classroom, I would acknowledge that yes, many people do not accept any form of I.D.

It is not within the scope of your job description or any of your business as a teacher to discuss whether a student's religious beliefs were a bad thing, and you would be WAY off base to do so. The only way that should become an issue if the student was acting out his/her religious beliefs in a way that was inappropriate or detrimental to other students.

billions do not believe in ID. how would you verify that if you've just proposed your concept of ID a few days ago? bear in mind that outside of this thread, ID is not a pervasive concept, nor is it understood to be anything like what you have described it as.

ID is not a religious belief by your own insistence. i am agreeable with this characterization. beliefs empowered by faith such as religious beliefs are their own device which science mute on. ID or an argument that deity is disproven by science are mischaracterizations of science, and while you insist there is no scientific quality to ID, it does propose that natural phenomena are explained via the input of a designer. science does not support this concept, favoring instead, scientifically significant evidence for such conclusions. if a student believes that their grammatical choices should be respected in the classroom or their scientific notions are as well, a school system should not bend its standard to accommodate it, no matter the fallacy presented by your distantly false claim that billions believe in ID.

 

[Foxfyre]

You still don't see that for most of us I.D. is not an either/or thing, Antagon. For most of us I.D. and the natural order go hand in hand. I.D. does not interfere with or complicate the natural order. The only thing that has to be rethought is that natural selection is purely by accident or chance. Those, like Einstein, were/are not convinced that pure accident or chance produced the incredible intricacies, order, magnificence, and beauty that is observed in nature; ergo there is room to rationally suppose some sort of intelligence behind it all.

Einstein required nobody else to buy into his conclusion. Nor do I. It does not bother me in the least that some don't see it. It is a bit puzzling and even humorous at times though that some seem so desperate to disprove or deny any such concept. If nothing else convinced me that we were on the right track with it, that would.

 

[antagon]

You still don't see that for most of us I.D. is not an either/or thing, Antagon. For most of us I.D. and the natural order go hand in hand. I.D. does not interfere with or complicate the natural order. The only thing that has to be rethought is that natural selection is purely by accident or chance. Those, like Einstein, were/are not convinced that pure accident or chance produced the incredible intricacies, order, magnificence, and beauty that is observed in nature; ergo there is room to rationally suppose some sort of intelligence behind it all.

Einstein required nobody else to buy into his conclusion. Nor do I. It does not bother me in the least that some don't see it. It is a bit puzzling and even humorous at times though that some seem so desperate to disprove or deny any such concept. If nothing else convinced me that we were on the right track with it, that would.

nah.

i don't think people who know what ID is as it was coined in the context of science feel as you do about ID. it is semantic, but your insistence on engagement with the term makes your argument incredible if only because you include others in what you can only evidence to be a personal defiance of the original context of the word. your co-opting of any company in your position is not supported on those lines.

shifting goalposts as creationists did with the coining of the term of ID in the first place, or your shift in characterizing einstein as supportive of teleology or co-opting his support for ID as if it is remotely plausible that he would ever condone the widely accepted connotation of the phrase is dishonest. it is not standing up for your rights or what you've contended by my measure.

if you can present your argument from exclusively your own perspective, clearly define your definition for ID as those who coined the term have, or establish that your argumentum ad populum, while fallacious, is not also dishonest, hyperbolic and inaccurate, we could maybe get somewhere in understanding one another. from where i am, the target moves from one post to the next, and your argument uses dead guys who dont support your position as shields.

 

[JBeukema]

How can he make up his own definition and then say how 'most people' accept it?

 

[antagon]

How can he make up his own definition and then say how 'most people' accept it?

i guess i could have just said that. it took me a paragraph instead *sigh*

i always thought he was a she as well.

 

[eagleseven]

Can I vote for stupid design?

Pity we can't arrest them for drinking while designing.

 

[Foxfyre]

How can he make up his own definition and then say how 'most people' accept it?

i guess i could have just said that. it took me a paragraph instead *sigh*

i always thought he was a she as well.

Well as long as you're stuck on the definition you want and won't budge off that to see the concepts expressed by the great minds of Socrates, Plato, Spinoza, Einstein et al or even try to see where they were coming from, we're pretty well stuck period aren't we. You were offered a chance to coin your own phrase or word for their point of view and didn't. And you won't accept I.D. as any way other than you have decided it must be defined.

So we might as well shake hands and give up at this point. I am 100% convinced of the validity of my argument. You seem 100% convinced of the validity of yours. So lets let it go at that. This has now become too circular an argument to be very interesting at this point. I have appreciated the exercise, however.

 

[JBeukema]

HEY, EVERYONE, EAGLE'S NOT DEAD!

 

[antagon]

How can he make up his own definition and then say how 'most people' accept it?

i guess i could have just said that. it took me a paragraph instead *sigh*

i always thought he was a she as well.

Well as long as you're stuck on the definition you want and won't budge off that to see the concepts expressed by the great minds of Socrates, Plato, Spinoza, Einstein et al or even try to see where they were coming from, we're pretty well stuck period aren't we. You were offered a chance to coin your own phrase or word for their point of view and didn't. And you won't accept I.D. as any way other than you have decided it must be defined.

So we might as well shake hands and give up at this point. I am 100% convinced of the validity of my argument. You seem 100% convinced of the validity of yours. So lets let it go at that. This has now become too circular an argument to be very interesting at this point. I have appreciated the exercise, however.

i offered deism or species of deism as being more accurate and subsequently defended the fact with a 3rd party definition aligned with einstein's quote corroborating spinoza.

i've offered the 3rd party definition of ID which i've entertained your dissent to, but which precludes your inclusion of anyone but yourself in support of the term itself. i've characterized your consistent inclusion of others whose names or arbitrary quantities you've alluded to as a dishonest tactic due to your choice to coopt an established term or the beliefs of those whose support for its alternative use has not been established.

i've challenged that you define your term plainly as the established version so that when you say fire, i could be certain you dont mean flame. its a simple challenge, but one which you'd have to rise to in order for your 100% validity to have any value as dialectic argument, rather than a schizophrenic one.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

There is no scientific evidence for god or gods or whatever. But that does not mean there is no evidence.

Actually that's EXACTLY what it means. Or are you actually proposing that non-scientific evidence should be passed off as valid in a scientific classroom? Did you miss the fact that it's not scientific?

There is no scientific proof for feelings of love or hope or speculation either.

Sure there is. fMRI studies can show which parts of the brain light up. We can tell what neurotransmitter allows for "hope" and have made pills to help people who lose it. Please stop making up crap and putting it forth as supportive evidence. NONETHELESS, things such as love and hope ARE NOT TAUGHT IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS.

After all we have presumably some scientific evidence for the presence of ghosts or paranormal activity, but certainly science is not in universal agreement about whether the evidence is credible yet.

This is also false. There is no scientific evidence regarding ghosts or paranormal activity. There is absolutely universal agreement on the topic: ghosts aren't real. I can't tell whether you're gullible or just incapable of understanding the underlying concepts of scientific investigation.

And the teacher should also explain to his skeptical 'religious' students that they are not required to believe the scientific explanations that we have for creation

Why on earth would we employ science teachers across the country to teach things to kids that shouldn't be believed? More ridiculousness. Scientific evidence is what is taught as correct, so that some bright minds can begin to forge their careers and passions, not as something arbitrary to pass a test.

But even if you say they were just denying religious faith, there is no evidence whatsoever with which to falsify intelligent design either any more than dreams or imagination can be falsified and we believe those things exist even though we cannot prove it or falsify it.

Still false. EEG can monitor both dreams and imagination as real and occurring, without specifics. Please stop making up science to suit your needs. There is no evidence on the tooth fairy, sleeping beauty, the Christian story of creation, and the flying spaghetti monster. It is not the role of public education to pander to such fairy tales and unsupported ideas.

Therefore no science teacher should be dismissing I.D. as only religious faith any more than he should dismiss any other reported phenomenon that falls outside the realm of accepted science.

Agreed, which is why science teaches dismiss all unsupported crap equally.

If you insist that good science be taught, I can insist that ONLY science be taught.

That IS good science. It has nothing to do with your religious beliefs, and has no reason to acknowledge them whatsoever. If well established evidence messes with a child's faith: too bad. Either you can raise your kid in similar ignorance, or they can learn from intelligent reasoning.

I think that belief in "Manifest Destiny" and "Intelligent Design" are associated. I doubt that a 19th century American citizen would believe in the first without also believing in the second

Good thing it's not two centuries ago.

So we might as well shake hands and give up at this point. I am 100% convinced of the validity of my argument. You seem 100% convinced of the validity of yours. So lets let it go at that.

Good thing the policy makers in the country are 100% convinced you're wrong.

Religion has no place in a science classroom. Not in the teaching. Not in the acknowledgment. Not in the student responses. None.

Many people sharing your beliefs have tried to change things and failed over and over again. And that's how it will stay.

 

[Dr Grump]

The teacher can acknowledge that billions believe in I.D.

Proof?

 

[Dr Grump]

...also include what it is appropriate for POLITICAL scientists to discuss in the classroom?

outside of college, is political science even a subject in schools? Under social studies or social science maybe?

 

[Foxfyre]

i guess i could have just said that. it took me a paragraph instead *sigh*

i always thought he was a she as well.

Well as long as you're stuck on the definition you want and won't budge off that to see the concepts expressed by the great minds of Socrates, Plato, Spinoza, Einstein et al or even try to see where they were coming from, we're pretty well stuck period aren't we. You were offered a chance to coin your own phrase or word for their point of view and didn't. And you won't accept I.D. as any way other than you have decided it must be defined.

So we might as well shake hands and give up at this point. I am 100% convinced of the validity of my argument. You seem 100% convinced of the validity of yours. So lets let it go at that. This has now become too circular an argument to be very interesting at this point. I have appreciated the exercise, however.

i offered deism or species of deism as being more accurate and subsequently defended the fact with a 3rd party definition aligned with einstein's quote corroborating spinoza.

i've offered the 3rd party definition of ID which i've entertained your dissent to, but which precludes your inclusion of anyone but yourself in support of the term itself. i've characterized your consistent inclusion of others whose names or arbitrary quantities you've alluded to as a dishonest tactic due to your choice to coopt an established term or the beliefs of those whose support for its alternative use has not been established.

i've challenged that you define your term plainly as the established version so that when you say fire, i could be certain you dont mean flame. its a simple challenge, but one which you'd have to rise to in order for your 100% validity to have any value as dialectic argument, rather than a schizophrenic one.

And I've used any number of great thinkers' analogy to describe what I mean by I.D. Sorry you think we're all schizophrenic because we don't narrow down the concept to a nice neat one sentence explanation. It is far broader than that. You must have missed all that.

Briefly I used Plato's "cave metaphor' to illustrate that the 'idea' of all that exists has always been here. I used Spinoza and Einstein's concept of some kind of intelligence power--not one emitting from a Deity--but an intelligence incorporated into the whole. In the simplest possible terms, As student of Plato, Aristotle was one who considered that all things have always been here--and while he did not conceive of a Creator, he could conceive of a prime mover--certainly not a Deity or being or person but rather a consciousness or force that made it all work. I could come up with others who developed other variations on these themes, but if you don't get the gist from this, there wouldn't be any point.

 

[edthecynic]

Well as long as you're stuck on the definition you want and won't budge off that to see the concepts expressed by the great minds of Socrates, Plato, Spinoza, Einstein et al or even try to see where they were coming from, we're pretty well stuck period aren't we. You were offered a chance to coin your own phrase or word for their point of view and didn't. And you won't accept I.D. as any way other than you have decided it must be defined.

So we might as well shake hands and give up at this point. I am 100% convinced of the validity of my argument. You seem 100% convinced of the validity of yours. So lets let it go at that. This has now become too circular an argument to be very interesting at this point. I have appreciated the exercise, however.

i offered deism or species of deism as being more accurate and subsequently defended the fact with a 3rd party definition aligned with einstein's quote corroborating spinoza.

i've offered the 3rd party definition of ID which i've entertained your dissent to, but which precludes your inclusion of anyone but yourself in support of the term itself. i've characterized your consistent inclusion of others whose names or arbitrary quantities you've alluded to as a dishonest tactic due to your choice to coopt an established term or the beliefs of those whose support for its alternative use has not been established.

i've challenged that you define your term plainly as the established version so that when you say fire, i could be certain you dont mean flame. its a simple challenge, but one which you'd have to rise to in order for your 100% validity to have any value as dialectic argument, rather than a schizophrenic one.

And I've used any number of great thinkers' analogy to describe what I mean by I.D. Sorry you think we're all schizophrenic because we don't narrow down the concept to a nice neat one sentence explanation. It is far broader than that. You must have missed all that.

Briefly I used Plato's "cave metaphor' to illustrate that the 'idea' of all that exists has always been here. I used Spinoza and Einstein's concept of some kind of intelligence power--not one emitting from a Deity--but an intelligence incorporated into the whole. In the simplest possible terms, As student of Plato, Aristotle was one who considered that all things have always been here--and while he did not conceive of a Creator, he could conceive of a prime mover--certainly not a Deity or being or person but rather a consciousness or force that made it all work. I could come up with others who developed other variations on these themes, but if you don't get the gist from this, there wouldn't be any point.

Do you mean like ENERGY?

 

[antagon]

Well as long as you're stuck on the definition you want and won't budge off that to see the concepts expressed by the great minds of Socrates, Plato, Spinoza, Einstein et al or even try to see where they were coming from, we're pretty well stuck period aren't we. You were offered a chance to coin your own phrase or word for their point of view and didn't. And you won't accept I.D. as any way other than you have decided it must be defined.

So we might as well shake hands and give up at this point. I am 100% convinced of the validity of my argument. You seem 100% convinced of the validity of yours. So lets let it go at that. This has now become too circular an argument to be very interesting at this point. I have appreciated the exercise, however.

i offered deism or species of deism as being more accurate and subsequently defended the fact with a 3rd party definition aligned with einstein's quote corroborating spinoza.

i've offered the 3rd party definition of ID which i've entertained your dissent to, but which precludes your inclusion of anyone but yourself in support of the term itself. i've characterized your consistent inclusion of others whose names or arbitrary quantities you've alluded to as a dishonest tactic due to your choice to coopt an established term or the beliefs of those whose support for its alternative use has not been established.

i've challenged that you define your term plainly as the established version so that when you say fire, i could be certain you dont mean flame. its a simple challenge, but one which you'd have to rise to in order for your 100% validity to have any value as dialectic argument, rather than a schizophrenic one.

And I've used any number of great thinkers' analogy to describe what I mean by I.D. Sorry you think we're all schizophrenic because we don't narrow down the concept to a nice neat one sentence explanation. It is far broader than that. You must have missed all that.

for me language is more powerful that many give it credit. in summary any detailed concept can be describe succinctly. in this case, it is important because there is a line between what constitutes a belief derived from faith and one derived from science. science has an obligation to constrain beliefs derived from within it to theory presented within a specific paradigm. without this, the credibility of the study is undermined by those who would aim to establish that their faith in a god or in the absence of a god is supported by science.

i feel that your predilection for the term ID is disingenuous, and that you aim to blur this line in argument as to propose that what is included in the concept of ID or teleology is also inclusive of those who i would characterize as deists or stoics, despite the latter characterizations being safely outside of this threat to scientific integrity. it is plain, however, that you will persist in co-opting adherents to something very different than what you support through persistence in making your position as ambiguous or shifty as needed to do so. what to do?

 

[SmarterThanHick]

So let's recap the thread:

• Yet another religious zealot tries to push ID, a non-scientific concept, into a scientific classroom.
• He has to warp the actual meaning of the term to start.
• He can then apply his twisted meaning to pull the quotes of previous thinkers out of context and claim their beliefs are in agreement.
• He doesn't understand basic scientific methods, and can't realize that science has nothing to do with acknowledging beliefs that have absolutely no supporting evidence.
• He must ignore anyone who thoroughly shoots down his misconceptions of science.
• He doesn't acknowledge any of the other millions of crackpot ideas that similarly have no scientific basis as things that similarly should not be brought up in a scientific classroom.
• He therefore concludes that science is attacking the weak faith of children everywhere, when science is too objective to care about his personal religious beliefs.
• No compelling reason is given to actually include ID in any classroom for any reason.

Well that was fun.