MERGED -> Bush endorses 'intelligent design' + Politicized Scholars... - Page 4 - 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 08-03-2005, 12:12 PM   #46
ONE
love, blood, life
 
FizzingWhizzbees's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: the choirgirl hotel
Posts: 12,614
Local Time: 05:12 PM
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.
Because it is a theory of science based on religious faith. There is quite simply no objective scientific evidence for 'intelligent design' and for this reason the theory has no place in the science classroom.
__________________

__________________
FizzingWhizzbees is offline  
Old 08-03-2005, 12:20 PM   #47
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
randhail's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Outside Providence
Posts: 3,557
Local Time: 12:12 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by melon


"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.
Melon
How is it bunk? Can you disprove ID completely? Can you give me irrefutable evidence as to how we arrived here?
__________________

__________________
randhail is offline  
Old 08-03-2005, 12:20 PM   #48
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 09:12 AM
Quote:
The president has a logic system that works for him. Here's an example: You know Rafael Palmeiro?

STEWART: Yes, uh, the baseball player who was suspended for taking steroids, after he testified in Congress that he had never taken steroids.

CORDDRY: Right. Now you or I might look at Palmeiro's positive drug test and say, "Wow, Rafael Palmeiro is a steroid user." The president looks at that and says to reporters yesterday, "Palmeiro's the kind of person that's going to stand up and say he didn't use steroids, and I believe him." Or, to paraphrase (putting hands over ears): "LALALALALA."
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 08-03-2005, 12:26 PM   #49
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 12:12 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by randhail
How is it bunk? Can you disprove ID completely? Can you give me irrefutable evidence as to how we arrived here?
The burden of proof is not on science. The burden of proof is on "intelligent design" to prove itself to be a science. Period. That's is the only way anything ever makes it into the field of science; but so far, "intelligent design" isn't doing too well. ID bases its "theology" on fallacies and mistruths with clear personal biases against Darwinism that science itself has found holes large enough to drive a semi through it.

Evolution passed its test decades ago to quantify as a bona fide scientific theory, which is not taken lightly. The best "intelligent design" will ever be is an unprovable hypothesis, and that plain does not pass the test to be worthy to be taught in science class.

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

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 08-03-2005, 12:39 PM   #50
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
randhail's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Outside Providence
Posts: 3,557
Local Time: 12:12 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by melon


Evolution passed its test decades ago to quantify as a bona fide scientific theory, which is not taken lightly. The best "intelligent design" will ever be is an unprovable hypothesis, and that plain does not pass the test to be worthy to be taught in science class.

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

Melon
Evolution is not the end all and be all of scientific dogma. It does not explain the advent of new anatomical features but rather only how current ones become modified. While ID is not a science, it is worthy of mention as a possibilty of how life arrived.
__________________
randhail is offline  
Old 08-03-2005, 12:43 PM   #51
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 12:12 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by randhail
Evolution is not the end all and be all of scientific dogma. It does not explain the advent of new anatomical features but rather only how current ones become modified.
No one ever said that current theories of evolution answer everything about the creation of life anymore than saying that medicine knows the answers to everything about the human body. But we wouldn't imagine adopting Christian Scientist theology and passing it off as "medicine," now would we?

Quote:
While ID is not a science, it is worthy of mention as a possibilty of how life arrived.
Ah, but you see, that's for the realm of philosophy and theology, not science.

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 08-03-2005, 12:51 PM   #52
War Child
 
Iskra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 752
Local Time: 06:12 PM
That is what happens when you elect a redneck.
Idiots.
__________________
Iskra is offline  
Old 08-03-2005, 12:56 PM   #53
Refugee
 
unosdostres14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: ogacihC
Posts: 1,558
Local Time: 05:12 PM
ID should not be taught in a classroom because it's not science. It's a philosophy of how life was created. It belongs in religion class, not science class.
__________________
unosdostres14 is offline  
Old 08-03-2005, 01:08 PM   #54
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
randhail's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Outside Providence
Posts: 3,557
Local Time: 12:12 PM
Fair points. You are right that it is more of a philosophical issue than anything. Waves the white flag for this.
__________________
randhail is offline  
Old 08-03-2005, 01:19 PM   #55
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 09:12 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by FizzingWhizzbees


Because it is a theory of science based on religious faith. There is quite simply no objective scientific evidence for 'intelligent design' and for this reason the theory has no place in the science classroom.
I've heard the repeated arguments before. But, the argument exists in a self-contained universe. You cannot consider an intelligent design theory because you deem it "non-scientific". Not a very scientific approach.

And what you don't realize is that you take just as big a leap of faith to follow evolution as an explaination for the beginning of life.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 08-03-2005, 01:24 PM   #56
ONE
love, blood, life
 
FizzingWhizzbees's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: the choirgirl hotel
Posts: 12,614
Local Time: 05:12 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader


I've heard the repeated arguments before. But, the argument exists in a self-contained universe. You cannot consider an intelligent design theory because you deem it "non-scientific". Not a very scientific approach.

And what you don't realize is that you take just as big a leap of faith to follow evolution as an explaination for the beginning of life.
Perhaps you would like to explain on what grounds you consider intelligent design a valid scientific theory.

And I do not believe that looking at the vast amount of objective scientific evidence for evolution and concluding that it is the most plausible explanation for the origin of life is in any way as much of a leap of faith as deciding that God created the world in the absence of any objective evidence for such a belief.
__________________
FizzingWhizzbees is offline  
Old 08-03-2005, 01:27 PM   #57
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 09:12 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by FizzingWhizzbees
And I do not believe that looking at the vast amount of objective scientific evidence for evolution and concluding that it is the most plausible explanation for the origin of life is in any way as much of a leap of faith as deciding that God created the world in the absence of any objective evidence for such a belief.
There is no objective evidence that the first life forms just "formed". In fact, the mathematics behind this actually happening would lead the average reasonable scientist to say it is impossible.

However, when you won't entertain an alternative idea, I guess you are stuck with evolution.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 08-03-2005, 01:28 PM   #58
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 12:12 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader
And what you don't realize is that you take just as big a leap of faith to follow evolution as an explaination for the beginning of life.
I've heard that argument before, but it's not true. "Evolution" is not all based on the "whoops" factor; I'd say that's a very minimal part of what makes up evolution. There is lots of scientifically observable evidence in favor of evolution, which is why it is the preferred theory for the origin of life. "Evidence," by definition, is the antithesis of "faith."

If people are interested in "faith," then they can go to church and believe whatever they want. There's nothing wrong or unethical about that. If people are interested in the "evidence," however, then they can study science.

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 08-03-2005, 01:33 PM   #59
Refugee
 
Lemonfix's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Jammin' to "The 2"
Posts: 1,075
Local Time: 10:12 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Iskra
That is what happens when you elect a redneck.
Idiots.
Actually, if you look at this guy's lineage it's Yaley Greenwich Episcopalian turned Methodist but I digress...

Melon, I'd be more interested in finding out more about how the Catholic theory of Evolution (as created by a higher power) differs from ID. Is there some good reading material/websites out there on the topic?
__________________
Lemonfix is offline  
Old 08-03-2005, 01:36 PM   #60
ONE
love, blood, life
 
FizzingWhizzbees's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: the choirgirl hotel
Posts: 12,614
Local Time: 05:12 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader


There is no objective evidence that the first life forms just "formed". In fact, the mathematics behind this actually happening would lead the average reasonable scientist to say it is impossible.

However, when you won't entertain an alternative idea, I guess you are stuck with evolution.
Having considered the alternative idea of 'intelligent design' I concluded that evolution is distinctly more plausible. It isn't about being "stuck with evolution" it's about considering the alternatives and concluding that evolution is more plausible than the alternatives.

I would really appreciate you answering the question I posed in my previous post if you have chance: "Perhaps you would like to explain on what grounds you consider intelligent design a valid scientific theory." After all, it really is key to the question of whether it's appropriate to teach 'intelligent design' in a science class.
__________________

__________________
FizzingWhizzbees 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 12:12 PM.


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