MERGED -> Bush endorses 'intelligent design' + Politicized Scholars... - Page 3 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 08-02-2005, 09:16 PM   #31
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 12:28 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Se7en
as someone else mentioned i imagine this is just the first step in a larger plan to get genesis into school classrooms.
I don't think so; it seems that it was more of a statement of his own personal beliefs reaffirming his position. I do not see this as the broad assault on science teaching ~ rather I see it as a result of it.
__________________

__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 08-02-2005, 09:20 PM   #32
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Se7en's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: all around in the dark - everywhere
Posts: 3,531
Local Time: 09:28 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer
I don't think so; it seems that it was more of a statement of his own personal beliefs reaffirming his position. I do not see this as the broad assault on science teaching ~ rather I see it as a result of it.
funny that you and i would disagree.

anyway, i really don't care what his personal beliefs are - he has a right to them like anyone else. it was this quote thought that makes me wonder:

Quote:
In a wide-ranging question-and-answer session with a small group of reporters, Bush essentially endorsed efforts by Christian conservatives to give intelligent design equal standing with the theory of evolution in the nation's schools.
i could be wrong. hopefully so.
__________________

__________________
Se7en is offline  
Old 08-02-2005, 09:24 PM   #33
Acrobat
 
echo0001's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: WV-USA
Posts: 349
Local Time: 09:28 AM
Creationism and Intelligent Design have no place in the science classroom.

They belong in a comparative regligion class (but that will never happen, 'cause many Christians would strenously object to their children being exposed to other religions) or in a philosophy class (which most American children, let us be honest here, would not be equipped to handle, seeing as how they've never been taught how to think without getting a headache that can only be cured by video games, pathetic comedy movies starring Adam Sandler and massive infusions of Coca-cola).

Science is science. Religion is something else. I wish somebody would explain this to Georgie Jr.
__________________
echo0001 is offline  
Old 08-02-2005, 09:30 PM   #34
Refugee
 
unosdostres14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: ogacihC
Posts: 1,558
Local Time: 02:28 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by echo0001
Creationism and Intelligent Design have no place in the science classroom.

They belong in a comparative regligion class (but that will never happen, 'cause many Christians would strenously object to their children being exposed to other religions) or in a philosophy class (which most American children, let us be honest here, would not be equipped to handle, seeing as how they've never been taught how to think without getting a headache that can only be cured by video games, pathetic comedy movies starring Adam Sandler and massive infusions of Coca-cola).

Science is science. Religion is something else. I wish somebody would explain this to Georgie Jr.

Being the brother of someone who double majored in political science and philosophy. I COMPLETELY agree with you.
__________________
unosdostres14 is offline  
Old 08-02-2005, 09:37 PM   #35
Acrobat
 
echo0001's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: WV-USA
Posts: 349
Local Time: 09:28 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by unosdostres14



Being the brother of someone who double majored in political science and philosophy. I COMPLETELY agree with you.
Thank you!
__________________
echo0001 is offline  
Old 08-02-2005, 10:21 PM   #36
Refugee
 
MadelynIris's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Craggy Island
Posts: 1,504
Local Time: 09:28 AM
Quote:
I know. Somebody needs to tell George W that Politics and Religion don't mix. Or at least don't go together well.
This is precisely why the democrats keep losing the election.

W realized how many people vote based on spiritual beliefs, and that gave him the edge.
__________________
MadelynIris is offline  
Old 08-02-2005, 10:57 PM   #37
The Fly
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Colorado, mostly.
Posts: 48
Local Time: 02:28 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by randhail


You are correct in saying ID is much different than creationism. It's apples and oranges. Creationism is wham bam everything happened in six days. ID takes evolution into account but acknowledges the presence of a diety too.

As a Catholic and a scientist, I tend to favor ID. Life is way too complex for it all to be random. If it were all evolution, it would be like winning the lottery day after day for millions of years.
ID is much different than Young Earth Creationism (YEC). However, it's more like granny smith apples and red delicious apples. YEC evolved into the day-age creationism, which turned into "scientific" creationism, which has turned into ID. None of them are scientifically supported, none of them are an "alternative" to evolution, and they all invoke the supernatural interference of a deity. Which, in the case of ID, is quite obviously the christian god.
__________________
Mongpoovian is offline  
Old 08-02-2005, 11:11 PM   #38
Refugee
 
Lemonfix's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Jammin' to "The 2"
Posts: 1,075
Local Time: 07:28 AM
As for W's views on evolution/ID, I doubt he gives the idea half a thought. Just wants to keep the social cons happy with a shout out.

But anyway, I have to admit that Intelligent Design rubs me the wrong way mostly because of the extremist element that seems to back it and the fear I have of them wanting to go even further into Creationism.

On the other hand, take away the slippery slope/religious extremist element of ID. What kind of argument can be made against it? It is not exhaulting a certain god or religion and is being offered up as a simple theory, that alone is not enough for it to be breaking church/state separation--I'd love it if someone could make a detailed argument why ID should not be implemented (and I'm not being glib, I really don't think ID is a good idea, I just can't really put my finger on why ).

Also, I know that many of you believe in both God and evolution. How does your belief differ from that of the the theory of Intelligent Design (also not a dig at anyone, just attempting to get a better feel on what ID really is and how it differs from how other theists view evolution.)
__________________
Lemonfix is offline  
Old 08-02-2005, 11:34 PM   #39
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 12:28 AM
Quote:
On the other hand, take away the slippery slope/religious extremist element of ID. What kind of argument can be made against it? It is not exhaulting a certain god or religion and is being offered up as a simple theory, that alone is not enough for it to be breaking church/state separation--I'd love it if someone could make a detailed argument why ID should not be implemented (and I'm not being glib, I really don't think ID is a good idea, I just can't really put my finger on why ).
The reason is because it is unscientific and it does not meet the requirements to be considered a scientific theory.

The principle point of it is that it infers a designer having a hand in life on earth; this designer cannot be proven or dispoven therefore it is not falsifiable. A key requirement for scientific theories is that they are falsifiable ~ for example Newtons law of Universal Gravitation was a scientific theory that fitted the observations of his day but was ultimately disproven when it was established that light did not travel instantaneously.

ID also lacks the evidence of regular evolutionary biology. While ID proponents will point to a few select examples where they can make their case (which can also be explained within the framework of evolutionary biology) they ignore all the other examples where the evidence does not fit around their hypothesis. In this it is a much weaker proposition than evolution ~ and I may also add that evolution is not a single set in stone theory, it is a dynamic area of research that is constantly being refined and explored unlike ID which starts with it's final conclusion (a designer) and works its way back.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 08-02-2005, 11:46 PM   #40
The Fly
 
s_tielemans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 59
Local Time: 03:28 PM
They've tried to hold a conference about it here (Holland), and get government funding for that. That idea was blasted in parliament. It's a theory that our prime minister and education minister (both of a Christian party) consider 'interesting and worthy of further investigation". They were laughed at by the rest of the country though.
Basically it focuses on the scientific premise of finding an element that cannot be proved to be evoluted. That would then prove the evolution theory a theory that cannot be right. However, they have found such a thing (some kind of bacteria I think), stop looking and (and that's where they go wrong in my view) use that as a way of saying "well, then it must be created by some super intelligent creature or diety". Evolutionist however, say they just haven't found the link yet.

It's interesting to discuss (nothing wrong with questioning any theory in my opinion), but not something to be taught as a scientifical fact to youngsters I think.
__________________
s_tielemans is offline  
Old 08-03-2005, 01:42 AM   #41
Vocal parasite
 
Axver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: 1853
Posts: 151,035
Local Time: 01:28 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer
The principle point of it is that it infers a designer having a hand in life on earth; this designer cannot be proven or dispoven therefore it is not falsifiable.
I want to know why someone can't seek to prove or disprove the existence of a deity via science.
__________________
"Mediocrity is never so dangerous as when it is dressed up as sincerity." - Søren Kierkegaard

Ian McCulloch the U2 fan:
"Who buys U2 records anyway? It's just music for plumbers and bricklayers. Bono, what a slob. You'd think with all that climbing about he does, he'd look real fit and that. But he's real fat, y'know. Reminds me of a soddin' mountain goat."
"And as for Bono, he needs a colostomy bag for his mouth."

U2gigs: The most comprehensive U2 setlist database!
Gig pictures | Blog
Axver is offline  
Old 08-03-2005, 03:20 AM   #42
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 09:28 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by randhail
You are correct in saying ID is much different than creationism. It's apples and oranges. Creationism is wham bam everything happened in six days. ID takes evolution into account but acknowledges the presence of a diety too.

As a Catholic and a scientist, I tend to favor ID. Life is way too complex for it all to be random. If it were all evolution, it would be like winning the lottery day after day for millions of years.
Catholicism doesn't believe in "intelligent design." It believes in "evolutionary creationism" (a.k.a., "theistic evolution"), which is believing that God is behind the scientific process of evolution. There's a big difference between that and "intelligent design," namely that Catholicism doesn't expect you to engage in pseudoscience to believe in both God and evolution.

Science class is not in the business of "democratization" of truth, no more than math class should be expected to take on Kabbalistic numerology.

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 08-03-2005, 05:14 AM   #43
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
hiphop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the jungle
Posts: 7,410
Local Time: 04:28 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by melon

no more than math class should be expected to take on Kabbalistic numerology.

Melon
oh but THAT would have been interesting.

in compare to vectors.
__________________
hiphop is offline  
Old 08-03-2005, 11:23 AM   #44
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 06:28 AM
Why are people so scared of intelligent design?

Teach both theories. If evolution is so solidly established, no one will buy the other theory. Certainly hasn't happened here.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 08-03-2005, 12:03 PM   #45
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 09:28 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader
Why are people so scared of intelligent design?

Teach both theories. If evolution is so solidly established, no one will buy the other theory. Certainly hasn't happened here.
"Intelligent design" is NOT a scientific theory. Just because a bunch of religious folk came together and decided to invent it does NOT make it a scientific theory. It is bunk.

Again, this would be the equivalent of teaching Kabbalist numerology in math class. Math and science are NOT meant to be subject to popular compromise.

If people want to believe in "intelligent design," they can go to church.

Melon
__________________

__________________
melon is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:28 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com