Who Here is a Christian? bLinD fAiTh rEbeLs :)

[got2k9s]

I'd like there to be a mention of Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie for 30 seconds of one biology class. After all, when they spawn, the world's most beautiful child may be born. This is surely grounded in genetics.

And I never, NEVER see any ID proponent asking we include the Hindu theory of the cycles of destruction and creation in a biology class. Talk about thinly veiled intentions.

Talking about Brangelina is not forbidden in biology class.

Anyway, I've never heard a proponent of ID say that the Hindu theory of "the cycles of destruction and creation" should be EXCLUDED from biology class.

 

[Irvine511]

Anyway, I've never heard a proponent of ID say that the Hindu theory of "the cycles of destruction and creation" should be EXCLUDED from biology class.

this is because Hindu's don't walk around claiming that their religious beliefs are as scientifically legitimate as evolutionary theory and demand that science recognize their supernatural beliefs as something equivalent to centuries of scientific inquiry and then sob about "religious discrimination" whenever scientists and educators and judges point out the fact that superstition has no place in a science class.

 

[got2k9s]

this is because Hindu's don't walk around claiming that their religious beliefs are as scientifically legitimate as evolutionary theory and demand that science recognize their supernatural beliefs as something equivalent to centuries of scientific inquiry and then sob about "religious discrimination" whenever scientists and educators and judges point out the fact that superstition has no place in a science class.

Again, again, again - there is no need to stereotype. That's just rude, sorry.

It's tiresome and juvenile, imo.

Furthermore, I was answering anitram, whose question wasn't about THE HINDUS. It was about ID proponents, which is a totally different angle than your response.

 

[nbcrusader]

Anyway, I've never heard a proponent of ID say that the Hindu theory of "the cycles of destruction and creation" should be EXCLUDED from biology class.

It is a strawman argument. ID is not discussed directly, it is associated with Christianity. Then, to further avoid ID, we add pluralism with the "you should then teach all other religions" argument.

The science behind ID is thus avoided.

 

[Irvine511]

Again, again, again - there is no need to stereotype. That's just rude, sorry.

It's tiresome and juvenile, imo.

Furthermore, I was answering anitram, whose question wasn't about THE HINDUS. It was about ID proponents, which is a totally different angle than your response.

please show me another religious group in this country that demands -- through lawsuits -- the inclusion of their religious creation myths in scientific curriculum, and then speaks about intolerance when their demands aren't met.

i think you need to step back and realize that no one is talking about all Christians. we are, however, talking about those who are very visible in the media and make their living through ID agitprop. are you aware of the various organizations and pressure groups such as the Discovery Institute -- who's goals are "to defeat materialism" and the "materialist world view" as represented by evolution, and replace it with "a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions" -- that constitute the backbone of the ID movement? perhaps you should read up on those.

 

[deep]

The science behind ID is thus avoided.

What science is behind ID?

 

[nbcrusader]

See, you missed it.

 

[Irvine511]

The science behind ID is thus avoided.

this is because there is no science behind ID to begin with.

the movement is based upon the discrediting of evolution, not the promotion of the "science" behind ID. Indeed, intelligent design proponent Michael Behe concedes "You can't prove intelligent design by experiment."

perhaps ID proponants might find comfort in this statement from the ruling:

[q]"After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science."[/q]

 

[nbcrusader]

So the court bought the evolution dogma.

It is still based on circular reasoning.

 

[Irvine511]

So the court bought the evolution dogma.

It is still based on circular reasoning.

i have so much respect for your brainpower, it really disappoints me to read things like this.

i suppose all scientific theories are just dogma and are no more verifiable or falsifiable than the fact that i believe that the Flying Spaghetti Monster created the world.

 

[deep]

The conservative Christian Judge appointed by GW Bush ruled that ID is nothing less than advocating the supernatural.

Science deals in provable theories and facts.

Supernatural beliefs should not be taught in science classes.

 

[got2k9s]

No, it can't be proven. The burden of proof is on ID to prove that it is true, not the other way around. If you want to learn ID, read a book on your own time or formulate a Sunday school class at your church.

All this talk, not just from you, melon, so I'm clear . . . but from all who equate "science" with "proof" for the reason ID should not be DISCUSSED in school . . . if this is the reasoning, then NOTHING should be taught in science class.

NOTHING is proven beyond question.

It's like someone else already said (A_Wanderer, maybe? Can't remember who) . . . even scientific ideas are constantly revised. And melon, you agreed (as I do, too) that 'science' is a living thing.

Evolution ISN'T AN INFALLIBLE TEACHING.
It's just the most widely embraced one within the scientific community, who is, frankly, already averse to consider what can not be touched, even if it COULD be proven.
(which, as already established, it's not supposed to be . . . thus the vicious cycle of "then why in the classroom v. why not" this thread seems to have become.)

Which, incidentally, my apologies to iron_horse for us totally derailing the thread

 

[Irvine511]

NOTHING is proven beyond question.

you really don't understand the terms of the argument.

it's not what is and what isn't proved that determins science.

it is HOW things are verified and/or falsified that determins what is and what isn't considered science.

there's a thing called the scientific method. the supernatural cannot be examined with the scientific method. hence, it is not science.

please, understand the subject first before you criticize.

all your thoughts are perfectly applicable if one were to debate, say, in a Philosophy of Science class, or a Theology Class.

but don't for a minute sit there and think that ID is science.

it isn't. even it's proponants will admit that. ID is a scheme to lend scientific credibility to creationist superstitions.

 

[deep]

proven beyond question.

It's like someone else already said (A_Wanderer, maybe? Can't remember who) . . . even scientific ideas are constantly revised. And melon, you agreed (as I do, too) that 'science' is a living thing.

when science theories do not prove out

Science is quick to discard and accept the new provable theory

if Religion were treated as a "living thing" it would serve its adherents much better

 

[got2k9s]

when science theories do not prove out

Science is quick to discard and accept the new provable theory

if Religion were treated as a "living thing" it would serve its adherents much better

SO, then plenty of "science" is not science.

Because if, as you state above, science theories can "not prove out," and are then replaced with more provable theories, those initial theories are not science.

So why were they in a science class?

I mean, let's ask . . . if a scientist doesn't have faith in God, but he were led to check into the possibility of God's existence, because he's a scientist, then what, it's science?

But when he can't find anything, it's not?

Then what was he doing?

Do unproven theories have a place in science, then?
Because even with "God's existence" as a theory, must an attempt to prove it take place before it's decided, in the scientific community, that it's UNPROVABLE?

I mean, a scientist is not going to take the word of a believer who says "you can't prove it, anyway," is he?

Isn't he going to try?

 

[nbcrusader]

Why does the exclusion of the concept of ID extend to things such as mathematical models showing the improbability (or impossibility) of evolution? That is my biggest problem with the exclusive presentation of evolution. It disregards the data that exposes the holes in the theory.

This isn't about teaching Genesis.

 

[got2k9s]

Anyway, I've never heard a proponent of ID say that the Hindu theory of "the cycles of destruction and creation" should be EXCLUDED from biology class.

Feels weird, quoting myself.

nbcrusader, this response from me was to anitram after she said that she'd never seen proponents of ID saying the Hindu theory SHOULD ALSO be included.

Not sure if that was clear?

 

[deep]

Why does the exclusion of the concept of ID extend to things such as mathematical models showing the improbability (or impossibility) of evolution? That is my biggest problem with the exclusive presentation of evolution. It disregards the data that exposes the holes in the theory.

This isn't about teaching Genesis.

and a poll tax in the South was not about suppressing the black vote.

(Afterall, it was only a dollar,
even the poorest could manage that amount if they truly cared about voting)

 

[A_Wanderer]

"Could be proven by evidence?" COULD??
Yet, you have no problem whatsoever believing in their existance before it's even PROVEN.
Not very "scientific."

I am not saying that Aliens exist, I am that they would be provable and that their existence is entirely consistent with a naturalistic view of the universe. The discovery of alien life would fit with what we know already.

]But more about 'proof' in the scientific world . . .
Are you also trying to say that EVERYTHING that is readily accepted in the scientific community can be traced back to irrefutable proof? Absolutely NOT!

No theory is 100%, that is another attribute of science - it changes as more evidence comes to light. Newtons theory of gravity correctly explained most falling bodies however it fell apart when we discovered that light is not infinitely quick, it took Einstein to devise a new way to describe gravity, his hypothesis about the nature of gravity was based on the evidence of the speed of light, it was also testable and falsifiable by checking if light from stars bent around the sun.

I brought God into the discussion in response to your using the word "designer."

By definition God is not falsifiable and God is not science, at least the leaders of the ID movement have the common sense not to give away their game by using the term God - thats what got creationism so effectively kicked out of the classroom.

 

[got2k9s]

That is my biggest problem with the exclusive presentation of evolution. It disregards the data that exposes the holes in the theory.

ABSOLUTELY right!!!!!!!

The presentation is too often that it's infallible. Without question. The only possible explanation.

WHY DO WE KEEP IGNORING THE HUGE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM?

That's what I want to know.

It's like no one in the schools wants to so much as address the white elephant; the elephant = the existence of alternate beliefs.

It's sad that it's so insulting to 'the scientific community' to even consider addressing an alternate belief based on what Irvine continues to categorize as words like, "myth," which is just rude, so I won't even respond to those posts, because again, how can it be myth if it can't be proven . . . but the scientific comminity is somehow horrified at the thought.

I think it's just SAD that their minds are so closed.
It's funny, to me, that believers are often categorized that way . . . but I must say, if *that* is true, believers are not alone . . .

 

[Irvine511]

Why does the exclusion of the concept of ID extend to things such as mathematical models showing the improbability (or impossibility) of evolution? That is my biggest problem with the exclusive presentation of evolution. It disregards the data that exposes the holes in the theory.

This isn't about teaching Genesis.

the exclusive presentation of evolution?

would you say "the exclusive presentation of plate tectonics"?

it does not disregard data -- and would you be so kind as to point out what these holes are? -- any and all scientific theories are well aware that there are areas into which we do not have knowledge.

yet.

through ever more rigorous research, testing, hypothesizing, and thinking, we just might be able to fill in these holes.

what ID does is take these holes and instead of seeking to push human knowledge further, it posits that we should say, "too complex -- must be God."

it's exceptionally anti-intellectual.

 

[Irvine511]

It's like no one in the schools wants to so much as address the white elephant; the elephant = the existence of alternate beliefs.

you've effectively undermined your own argument.

science doesn't concern itself with "beliefs."

it concerns itself with theories based upon facts.

end of story.

 

[got2k9s]

it's exceptionally anti-intellectual.

The insults never end.

Well, I guess those who disagree with you are just STOOPID, is that it?

If believing what you do is what enables one to TALK the way you do and embrace such blazing elitism, I'm glad I disagree with you.

 

[nbcrusader]

what ID does is take these holes and instead of seeking to push human knowledge further, it posits that we should say, "too complex -- must be God."

it's exceptionally anti-intellectual.

Is ignoring the holes or filling with unprovable theories just as anti-intellectual?

Especially the life from nothing aspect of evolution.

Create a single living cell in a lab and have a better argument.

 

[got2k9s]

you've effectively undermined your own argument.

science doesn't concern itself with "beliefs."

it concerns itself with theories based upon facts.

end of story.

Science expects other to BELIEVE *it* - - so it IS about beliefs, thank you very much.

And scientists believe theories before they are PROVEN, because they believe ones that later change when more is learned about the subject. They believed it before the change in belief, which was only BELIEVED TO BE PROVEN, but actually wasn't.

So . . .

 

[Irvine511]

The insults never end.

Well, I guess those who disagree with you are just STOOPID, is that it?

If believing what you do is what enables one to TALK the way you do and embrace such blazing elitism, I'm glad I disagree with you.

good gosh, you're just looking to be offended. enjoy the feeling of persecution?

firstly, intelligence and intellectualism are different things. learn the distinction, then get back to me.

secondly, i don't think your STOOPID. but i do think you're being anti-intellectual in that you're failing to understand the terms of the debate.

go back and look at what the judge had to say -- essentially, that while there might indeed by an Intelligent Disigner, it is NOT science.

go learn what science is and isn't, what it does and what it doesn't do.

you'll find that it isn't nearly as threatening as you'd like it to be.

where, oh where, is LivLuv? she's so eloquent on these matters.

 

[deep]

What ID supporters really are concerned about is:

that God created man in his image.

Are you (supporters) honest enough to admit this?

 

[Irvine511]

Science expects other to BELIEVE *it* - - so it IS about beliefs, thank you very much.

no, science expects others to LEARN it.

it is not about belief.

 

[got2k9s]

good gosh, you're just looking to be offended. enjoy the feeling of persecution?

firstly, intelligence and intellectualism are different things. learn the distinction, then get back to me.

secondly, i don't think your STOOPID. but i do think you're being anti-intellectual in that you're failing to understand the terms of the debate.

go back and look at what the judge had to say -- essentially, that while there might indeed by an Intelligent Disigner, it is NOT science.

go learn what science is and isn't, what it does and what it doesn't do.

you'll find that it isn't nearly as threatening as you'd like it to be.

where, oh where, is LivLuv? she's so eloquent on these matters.

Oh, you're not being rude? Continually telling me to go back and learn this or that . . . or 'understand the argument before I criticize,' etc. You certainly are treating me like you think I am stupid. But perhaps you can't help it, as that's obviously an extension of your elitism.

I am not failing to understand the terms of the debate - - I understand them perfectly.

What I am trying to say, and am getting TIRED of saying, is that everyone ignoring the elephant in the room is idiotic. It is a FEAR OF RELIGION in the school system that drives the "anti-ID" side of the debate just as much as you all say that RELIGION drives the "pro-ID" debate.

IT OFFENDS the scientific community to even consider that a supernatural being exists, because it is so comfortable to rest in ones belief of superiority.

BAH!

So, stop trying to point me in the direction of 'education' or 'intellect' and step down off that high horse.

 

[A_Wanderer]

All this talk, not just from you, melon, so I'm clear . . . but from all who equate "science" with "proof" for the reason ID should not be DISCUSSED in school . . . if this is the reasoning, then NOTHING should be taught in science class.

NOTHING is proven beyond question.

Earth being spherical, thats a scientific theory and that could technically be disproven

It's like someone else already said (A_Wanderer, maybe? Can't remember who) . . . even scientific ideas are constantly revised. And melon, you agreed (as I do, too) that 'science' is a living thing.

Evolution ISN'T AN INFALLIBLE TEACHING.

You are right, scientific theories never become the absolute truth, that is because they are not religion. They are tweaked and modified to explain what is observed, the natural world has some very strange examples out there, some that when first discovered fly in the face of what we may think makes sense (for instance why are there drone bees? what evolutionary purpose is for these insects to aid the colony? They themselves dont get to breed so what leads to the evolution of sterile animals? - the answer turns out to be the degree of relatedness between the drones and the queen and the breeding males, the drones by enabling the sucess of that breeding are actually ensuring that their common genetic material gets passed down, these conclusions are based on study and observation, they can even lead to new hypothesis about the mechanisms of evolution and provide spectacular insight)

This is moot anyhow because ID would not disprove evolution, ID is adressing the first life forms. In that it cannot provide the evidence, using the religious minded canard of "absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence"

It's just the most widely embraced one within the scientific community, who is, frankly, already averse to consider what can not be touched, even if it COULD be proven.

Ever touched a black hole? The scientific community is more than capable of embracing ideas that are literally out of this world that push the boundaries of what we thought we knew just years earlier - provided the phenomena is explainable, unexplained phenomena (like cosmological inflation) is not unexplainable, it is also not something that tears science apart. By finding explanations for the new pieces of evidence it gives a more complete picture.

This is opposed to religious belief where if one part of the thing is disproved then ones entire faith must be questioned.