Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 69

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Texas.
    Posts
    3,681
    Post Thanks / Like

    ID ain't Science!!!

    Seems like the courts finally got one right, and no mistake. Federal Judge denotes that ID is simply a religious ideal and NOT science. No comparing it to evolution, bud and that's the end of it...

    HARRISBURG, Pa. (AP) 'Intelligent design" cannot be mentioned in biology classes in a Pennsylvania public school district, a federal judge said Tuesday, ruling in one of the biggest courtroom clashes on evolution since the 1925 Scopes trial.



    http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...tm?POE=NEWISVA

    A sure victory for science in the classroom and at large, one wonders if this decision will impact the Kansas case at all?

    Any of you legal types have an answer?

    For those of us who said, I told ya so.... I told ya so!
    But if you do not find an intelligent companion, a wise and well-behaved person going the same way as yourself, then go on your way alone, like a king abandoning a conquered kingdom, or like a great elephant in the deep forest. - Buddha

  2. #2
    I've been given a "timeout"
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Tacoma, WA
    Posts
    450
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: ID ain't Science!!!

    I do not think this will have much impact on Kansas or the Creationist movement in general. Remember, they are NOT making a scientific case for creationism. They are making a POLITICAL case. They are appealing to SOME(a vocal minority?) Christians' sense of duty and faith as well as general ignorance of science. Putting a scientist in a gladiatorial arena will only bring about confusion and maybe cheers for the opponenet of the scientist.

    Look what happened in the O.J. Simpson case. You had 12 jurors who did not know DNA from bubble gum and Barry Shreck was able to convince them of all manner of hogwash.
    Creationists are trying to convicne NON-SCIENTISTS of their case, not scientists and that is a telling fact.

  3. #3
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Texas.
    Posts
    3,681
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: ID ain't Science!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by GodlessSkept
    I do not think this will have much impact on Kansas or the Creationist movement in general. Remember, they are NOT making a scientific case for creationism. They are making a POLITICAL case. They are appealing to SOME(a vocal minority?) Christians' sense of duty and faith as well as general ignorance of science. Putting a scientist in a gladiatorial arena will only bring about confusion and maybe cheers for the opponenet of the scientist.

    Look what happened in the O.J. Simpson case. You had 12 jurors who did not know DNA from bubble gum and Barry Shreck was able to convince them of all manner of hogwash.
    Creationists are trying to convicne NON-SCIENTISTS of their case, not scientists and that is a telling fact.
    I agree, but I was thinking from a legal perspective that precedent carried some weight in those circles.

    Personally, I've read some of the debate logs between creationists and scientists, and never fail to get somewhat tickled by the creationists claim of victory...

    ID is more political than anything and Behe himself admitted under oath that in order for it to science one had to change the definition of science.

    Interesting tack for a scientist, huh?
    But if you do not find an intelligent companion, a wise and well-behaved person going the same way as yourself, then go on your way alone, like a king abandoning a conquered kingdom, or like a great elephant in the deep forest. - Buddha

  4. #4
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    6,893
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: ID ain't Science!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by slipnish
    ID is more political than anything and Behe himself admitted under oath that in order for it to science one had to change the definition of science.
    Funny, Ive heard the need to redifine science in completely different circles....namely theoretical physics, but thats irrelevent.
    I typically cite original research papers and reviews that are available only to a personal or institutional subscriptional. If you wish a PDF copy of the papers I cite, send me a request.

  5. #5
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Grinnell, IA
    Posts
    4,460
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: ID ain't Science!!!

    I merged Slipnish's and Zhavrics threads, kept Slipnish's title and moved the thread to the US Politics forum as it regards a US court decision.

    Carry on.
    孟柏民
    Formerly Neverending (for all you old-timers)

  6. #6
    Banned Indefinitely

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    SF,CA
    Posts
    2,133
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: ID ain't Science!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by Slipnish
    A sure victory for science in the classroom and at large, one wonders if this decision will impact the Kansas case at all?

    Any of you legal types have an answer?
    It won't have any binding legal effect, but it surely sends the message to the "ID crowd" that no one is buying is their bull that ID is a viable, scientific alternative to the theory of evolution (or, in the words of the Federal Court, "[w]e conclude that the religious nature of ID would be readily apparent to an objective observer, adult or child.")

    With respect to the nature of the decision, it was a strong and definitive blow to ID, stating that with respect to the Dover school board's policy, it "singles out the theory of evolution for special treatment, misrepresents its status in the scientific community, causes students to doubt its validity without scientific justification, presents students with a religious alternative masquerading as a scientific theory, directs them to consult a creationist text as though it were a science resource and instructs students to forgo scientific inquiry in the public school classroom and instead to seek out religious instruction elsewhere."

    I also thought it interesting that the court made it a point to criticize the school board and the "breathtaking inanity" of the school board's decision. As the court stated, “[i]t is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy." The court continued, "[t]hose who disagree with our holding will likely mark it as the product of an activist judge. If so, they will have erred. ... Rather, this case came to us as the result of the activism of an ill-informed faction on a school board, aided by a national public interest law firm eager to find a constitutional test case on ID, who in combination drove the Board to adopt an imprudent and ultimately unconstitutional policy. ... The students, parents, and teachers of the Dover Area School District deserved better than to be dragged into this legal maelstrom, with its resulting utter waste of monetary and personal resources."

    In short, ID got knocked the fk out. Today is a great day for this country.

    Quote Originally Posted by Slipnish
    For those of us who said, I told ya so.... I told ya so!
    You got that right, sister!

  7. #7
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    9,272
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: ID ain't Science!!!

    http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/12/20/in...ign/index.html

    "To be sure, Darwin's theory of evolution is imperfect. However, the fact that a scientific theory cannot yet render an explanation on every point should not be used as a pretext to thrust an untestable alternative hypothesis grounded in religion into the science classroom or to misrepresent well-established scientific propositions," Jones writes.

    Aaaaaaannnnd Sig!!!!


    Looks like the court got this one right. They correctly identified ID as a form of Creationism, recognized that it's grounded in religion and has no place in a science class. Go Pennsylvania! I love ya. /\ /\

  8. #8
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    6,893
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: ID ain't Science!!!

    I dont really care what the courts have to say, the whole legal and political side of this debate is not important to me and I find it rather boring.

    Screw the politics of the issue, lets talk science.
    I typically cite original research papers and reviews that are available only to a personal or institutional subscriptional. If you wish a PDF copy of the papers I cite, send me a request.

  9. #9
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    With my Angel in Aurora
    Posts
    5,701
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: ID ain't Science!!!

    *notes where Kansas and Pennsylvania are*

    Problems with creationism and ID in the NORTH!? NOW who's inbreeding!

    Bravo for evolution. But still, the fact that it had to go to Court...well that says a LOT.
    But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander.
    1 Peter 3:15-16

  10. #10
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    McMaster University, Hamilton, ON
    Posts
    962
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: ID ain't Science!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by SK
    WTF do YOU mean? Big Bang is considered a regular and acceptable cirriculum for our schools, yet it is HARDLY based on science AT ALL.
    Surely you jest. Have you not read Zhav's source? Why do you not believe it is based upon science?

    How the flying HELL, do we know that all matter and energy was contained at one point? Would YOU like to show evidence for that? You know why it was contained at one point?
    We know that the matter and energy in the universe is moving apart. If the matter is moving apart as time moves forward then, if we use our powers of reason, we can know that matter must be closer together the farther we look back in time. If one follows this to its logical "start-point", then all of the matter must have been packed together at one point.

    Because BS scientists are trying to come up with an explanation and sound like they know what they are talking about.
    So, the scientists who are basing the idea of the Big Bang on observations are just BSing, while creationists who simply rely on faith are not?

    Riiiight....

    How can matter and energy exist when there is no space? Basically, in the beginning, there was no space, well... just a little bit to hold the matter and energy. BS.
    You might want to familiarize yourself with the concept of a singularity, a point of infinite density and infinitessimal volume.

    There was no freaking vacuum, it doesn't make ANY sense at all. Space came from somewhere too, since space is expanding, we can readily conclude that it must have a starting point. But NO, we insist that there was always space, what utter stupidity.
    Who said that there was always space? Scientists are not in complete agreement over the nature of space in the universe. Some say that space exists infinitely and simply acts as a region into which matter can expand, while others say that space itself is expanding with the matter.

    Big Bang is VERY relevant to this topic. You argue that ID has no scientific founding, when just from simple observation, I can see that Big Bang is hardly supported at all.
    The Big Bang has been formulated around scientific observations, most notably the expansion of the universe (observed via Doppler redshift) and the presence of microwave background radiation. The Big Bang is quite well supported. ID, however, has never been based on science. There are no scientific observations or pieces of scientific evidence from which the theory was created. It is a pseudoscience.

    There are SO many holes, it's a hypothesis, that's ALL, it's not supported. As shown ABOVE, they can't even explain WHY there was a vacuum. Everything came from something, right? Well, according to what I see and observe, yes, but when it comes to space, matter, and energy, nope, they were always there because it had to be that way. Where's the evidence? Yeah, we forgot about THAT part.
    Big Bang theory isn't perfect, but it is constantly adapting to new scientific observations and discoveries. The same cannot be said about ID, but I wouldn't expect ID to change. ID isn't science. It isn't based on science and it lacks falsifiability.
    -=]emtee10[=-
    ODN Super Moderator



    I'll give you a hint. Contradictions do not exist. Whenever you think that you are facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong.
    - Francisco d'Anconia, Atlas Shrugged

  11. #11
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    4,156
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: ID ain't Science!!!

    It's nice that the court recognized that ID is just a way to tell kids that they shouldn't forget God when learning about evolution. This type of instruction would be better offered in a church. Bravo.

  12. #12
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Sheffield, S.Yorks., UK
    Posts
    8,862
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: ID ain't Science!!!

    SK - 'Big Bang' theory has come out of scientific research so why shouldn't it be postulated as a scientific 'possibility'?

    Kev - It is the judge's job to weigh up evidence, not to give evidence. The 'evidence' is given by the 'experts'. The judge is better trained than the experts to weigh up the merits of those conflicting 'evidences'.
    "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." - Anais Nin.
    Emitte lucem et veritatem - Send out light and truth.
    'Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt' - Julius Caesar (rough translation, 'Men will think what they want to think')
    Kill my boss? Do I dare live out the American dream? - Homer Simpson.

  13. #13
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Borneo
    Posts
    2,089
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: ID ain't Science!!!

    Amusing how when ID is challenged some religious types show anger, stamp their feet and act just like monkeys.

    Ever noticed that you do actually have hair? It's small and fine but you're hairy. Ever noticed that when cold, you get goose-bumps? Know why? Well on a hairy ape, the skin goes like that to raise the fur and trap air, keeping them warm. So you have the actions (goosebumps) but without sufficent hair for it to work.

    This suggests your creator was not intelligent. He forgot the thick and useful fur...

    OR, scientific view, your ancient ancestors were hairy.

    Which means you'd look even more like an ape than you already do. Ever notice that when someone puts on an ape costume - it fits? In fact the only thing an ape costume, unlike a panto donkey for example, is, is a furry figure-hugging coat.

    What's the difference between you, covered in fur, and an ape?

    (and what does a shaved ape look like?)

    Why do you have a tailbone?

    Tailbones are extremely flexible (funny that) compared to the rest of the spine but can be damaged quite easily, for example just sitting down hard on a hard surface. This suggests our designer is stupid.

    OR

    Scientific theory - we used to have tails.

    Question - if you were furry and had a tail, what would be the difference between you... and an ape?

    Apes breath - do you?
    Apes eat - do you?
    Apes poo and piddle - do you?
    Apes get angry, sad and have other emotions - do you?
    Apes are born via the mother's vagina after a gestation period. You?
    Apes die - do you?

    Oh yeah I forgot, if you behave yourself you don't die, for your invisible 'spirit' floats off up to heaven and lives for ever and ever.

    Prooof for that idea is tricky, cos the only people to test the theory are erm... dead.


    Ever stop and think "This stuff is stoopid?"


    P.
    "The intelligence and facts are being fixed around the policy."
    head of MI6

    "The Emory University study proves beyond a doubt that politicians and their acolytes - are lying morons."

    "We must make clear to the Germans that the wrong for which their fallen leaders are on trial is not that they lost the war, but that they started it."
    Justice Jackson Nov. 21, 1945, Nuremberg

  14. #14
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Thornhill, Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    50
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: ID ain't Science!!!

    The people who argue for intelligent design usually point to all the flaws in evolution as justification. Then there's all this crap about how life is too complex to just have happened.

    Try finding some actual evidence first before teaching it in classrooms!

    Teaching intelligent design because there are some holes in evolution would be like teaching how the world is flat because we wouldn't know if somebody fell off the edge of it.

  15. #15
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    9,470
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: ID ain't Science!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by Canadian_Guy
    The people who argue for intelligent design usually point to all the flaws in evolution as justification. Then there's all this crap about how life is too complex to just have happened.

    Try finding some actual evidence first before teaching it in classrooms!
    That is a poor rebuttal. You have argued against life being too complex to have "just happened" by calling it "crap".

    Teaching intelligent design because there are some holes in evolution would be like teaching how the world is flat because we wouldn't know if somebody fell off the edge of it.
    That is a nonsensical analogy, and does nothing to address the many problems with the theory of macroevolution.

  16. #16
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    In the moment
    Posts
    2,347
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: ID ain't Science!!!

    First, I find it amazingly ironic that proponents of ID use lack of evidence for evolution as evidence for ID. The problem here is that something not being evidence for evolution is not by default evidence for ID. There is zero evidence pointing towards ID. You can say that ID fits with certain scientific information, but the information does not point to ID. As such, ID is not science.

    Let's put this a different way. Science is the use of the scientific methodology to determine the causes and effects of natural phenomena. Does anyone have a problem with that definition? They shouldn't, because it is the actual definition.

    The problem here is that ID, as described in the literature stricken by the judge, is NOT a natural phenomenon. Therefore, since science is the study of natural phenomena, ID cannot be studied by science. I do not understand why that is so difficult to understand. This is not to say that ID is incorrect, just that it is not possible to support it scientifically.

    Here's another thing. All the fundies seem to think that by denying ID in the classroom that we are teaching materialism in the classroom. The science teacher may in some cases be a "materialist", but how is that any different than the English teacher being a Fundamentalist Christian? I'm sure many science teachers are fundies, too. If we want to take all of the philosophy out of the teachers we need to do it across the board, not just in the science classroom. I personally have no problem with my children being taught by a wide range of teachers with different philosophies. Just because the materialists "believe" in science to solve all questions does not mean that science leads to materialism, any more than fundamentalism leads to attempts of world conquest. Materialism is not officially taught in the schools, either. Science, when taught as it is intended to be, is not a philosophy. It is a discipline. As such, it cannot support any belief. It can only explain natural phenomena.

    Therefore, this attitude that somehow the judge was siding with one philosophy over another is silly.
    I've been meek for a whole day now...

    The world is mine!!


    The power of oui.

    impssible

  17. #17
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Thornhill, Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    50
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: ID ain't Science!!!

    I'm just saying that because there's some more work needed to research a competing idea that has actual proof to back its validity doesn't mean that we should start believing in another idea with no demonstrated proof other than the fact that life happens to be complex.

    In terms of the analogy, I should have phrased it as intelligent design is along the same lines as saying that the world is flat because the only proof backing that is that the idea the world is round is flawed because there could potentially be an edge to the world that we haven't discovered yet and because science hasn't completely disproven the idea that there could be an edge means that edge could exist therefore it would be wrong to teach that the world is flat in schools as scientific fact.

    There could be an intelligent designer just like the Earth may have an undiscovered edge. We don't know and there's no way to know because there's absolutely no proof in either case, therefore we don't treat it as fact in the scientific world.

  18. #18
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    9,470
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: ID ain't Science!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by Canadian_Guy
    I'm just saying that because there's some more work needed to research a competing idea that has actual proof to back its validity doesn't mean that we should start believing in another idea with no demonstrated proof other than the fact that life happens to be complex.
    I agree there is proof of microevolution, or adaptation. I do not think any educated person could deny that. I do not believe that evolution can exceed all boundaries of genetics. I understand it is a proven fact that wolves, foxes, dogs, jackals, and hyenas all are directly related. I do not understand how the first canine, let us say the first "wolf", could have come from a non-canine, or what evidence there is for such a claim.

    In terms of the analogy, I should have phrased it as intelligent design is along the same lines as saying that the world is flat because the only proof backing that is that the idea the world is round is flawed because there could potentially be an edge to the world that we haven't discovered yet and because science hasn't completely disproven the idea that there could be an edge means that edge could exist therefore it would be wrong to teach that the world is flat in schools as scientific fact.
    I understand the intent of your analogy, but I do not think it is a good one in this case. We know for certain that the world does not have an edge. People have sailed all the way around without falling off, which actually only proves that gravity exists. Further, we have satellite photographs of the entire Earth, and it is clearly round.

    There could be an intelligent designer just like the Earth may have an undiscovered edge. We don't know and there's no way to know because there's absolutely no proof in either case, therefore we don't treat it as fact in the scientific world.
    There is no proof that men came from pond sludge either. I think the fact that life, and humans in particular, are so intricately complex, is good evidence of life being designed, rather than accidentally fallen together.

    I think that both the general concepts of evolution and intelligent design should be taught as possibilities, with the clear message that most modern scientists believe in macroevolution. It is the case that large-scale evolution may be held to by both theists and atheists, just as is the case with intelligent design. An atheist may believe that life on this planet was designed by non-divine extra-terrestrials, for example.

    Just as scientists are not exactly sure how macroevolution supposedly happens, as demonstrated by such contrasting theories as phyletic gradualism and punctuated equilibrium, other scientists are not exactly sure how intelligent design supposedly happened in this planet's case, shown by contrasting theories such as design by a deity, believed by most in the U.S. to be the God of Abraham, or design by extra-terrestrials.

    One may object that the implication of a belief in intelligent design is belief in the God of Abraham, but another may similarly object that the implication of a belief in macroevolution is belief in atheistic materialism.

    However, since atheistic materialism has become the widely-accepted worldview among this country's educational elite, this double-standard of unstated implications attached to both theories is ignored.

    I see a grave problem in both sides attempting to discuss the issue as if it is simply "religion versus science" in the sense of "fantasy versus reality", when in fact the issue involves two presupposed philosophies that shape how both sides view the evidence and form their conclusions.

  19. #19
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Thornhill, Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    50
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: ID ain't Science!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by KevinBrowning
    There is no proof that men came from pond sludge either. I think the fact that life, and humans in particular, are so intricately complex, is good evidence of life being designed, rather than accidentally fallen together.
    Evolution also accounts for the fact that we are so complex as a species. Fact is that there's a lot of junk in our DNA that could be taken out, but its there. If we were intelligently designed I think it would make more sense that we would have less of this junk in our genetics.

    [QUOTE=KevinBrowning]
    I think that both the general concepts of evolution and intelligent design should be taught as possibilities, with the clear message that most modern scientists believe in macroevolution. [QUOTE]

    For intelligent design to be taught in class there would have to be more proof behind the idea that there is an intelligent designer. Right now all we have as proof is that we exist and we're complex lifeforms. Those same two points could be applied to prove evolution.

    [QUOTE=KevinBrowning]
    An atheist may believe that life on this planet was designed by non-divine extra-terrestrials, for example.[QUOTE]

    If life on Earth were designed by extra-terrestrials then who designed the extra-terrestrials? If macroevolution can't work on Earth then it wouldn't be able to work on other planets either. In the end you would come back to either God or some other intelligence with the same 'powers' as God creating all life in the universe. Basically creationism.

    Quote Originally Posted by KevinBrowning
    One may object that the implication of a belief in intelligent design is belief in the God of Abraham, but another may similarly object that the implication of a belief in macroevolution is belief in atheistic materialism.
    Religion is defined as a belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe. A belief in the God of Abraham is a religious belief while a belief in atheistic materialism by definition is not religious. We have very little scientific evidence that God exists and that could be said to support the notion that God doesn't exist or if he does exist, that he plays a passive role in the universe.

    Quote Originally Posted by KevinBrowning
    However, since atheistic materialism has become the widely-accepted worldview among this country's educational elite, this double-standard of unstated implications attached to both theories is ignored.
    The American constitution specifically says that church and state should be seperate. Belief in a God or other powerful deities is religion while atheistic materialism is not. That's why it is prominent throughout institutions controlled by the state such as schools.

    Quote Originally Posted by KevinBrowning
    I see a grave problem in both sides attempting to discuss the issue as if it is simply "religion versus science" in the sense of "fantasy versus reality", when in fact the issue involves two presupposed philosophies that shape how both sides view the evidence and form their conclusions.
    There is very little scientific evidence of a creator. Science class is a place to discuss science not philosophy or theology. Macroevolution works off of the idea that we have DNA and that DNA can be mutated and can cause whoever the DNA belongs to to take on different characteristics and abilities as well as having different natural strengths or weaknesses. Intelligent design relies on the principle of a supreme intelligence or intelligences which we have no scientific proof as existing (as I debunked the idea of aliens designing humanity) and thus are not science but a form of religion (belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe) in a state-run environment that has a specific constitutional guideline not to teach religion as fact.

    Intelligent design could be true but the evidence supporting the idea can also point to evolution in many cases and also relies on the existence of a supreme intelligence that also has very little evidence of existing.
    "Living next to [America] is in some ways like sleeping with an elephant. No matter how friendly and even-tempered is the beast, if I can call it that, one is affected by every twitch and grunt.."
    - former Canadian Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau


    "We'll explain the appeal of curling to you if you explain the appeal of the National Rifle Association to us."
    - Andy Barrie

  20. #20
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    McMaster University, Hamilton, ON
    Posts
    962
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: ID ain't Science!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by Kev
    There is no proof that men came from pond sludge either. I think the fact that life, and humans in particular, are so intricately complex, is good evidence of life being designed, rather than accidentally fallen together.
    I've seen many IDers say things similar to this, but I've always wondered: How is the complexity of life evidence for the idea that it is designed? It seems to simply be an assumption.

    I think that both the general concepts of evolution and intelligent design should be taught as possibilities, with the clear message that most modern scientists believe in macroevolution.
    While I don't necessarily disagree with you in the respect that both should be seen as possibilities, I do have a problem with both being taught in a science class. Evolution, even as the imperfect theory that it is, is scientific. That is to say that the theory is based around observations and scientific data, and it follows the scientific method. ID, by contrast, is not science, because it is not based around observations or data. I'm not saying that ID is wrong, per se, I'm just saying that it isn't science.

    An atheist may believe that life on this planet was designed by non-divine extra-terrestrials, for example.
    While this is technically correct, it would be a weak way for an atheist to address the question of the beginning of life, as it would leave the question of the origin of the extra-terrestrials' life unanswered.

    One may object that the implication of a belief in intelligent design is belief in the God of Abraham, but another may similarly object that the implication of a belief in macroevolution is belief in atheistic materialism.
    What does evolution have to do with materialism? Science simply analyzes the manner in which our world works. It does not reinforce worldviews.

    However, since atheistic materialism has become the widely-accepted worldview among this country's educational elite, this double-standard of unstated implications attached to both theories is ignored.

    I see a grave problem in both sides attempting to discuss the issue as if it is simply "religion versus science" in the sense of "fantasy versus reality", when in fact the issue involves two presupposed philosophies that shape how both sides view the evidence and form their conclusions.
    I fail to see how this is an issue of philosophy to begin with. Science is indifferent to philosophy.



    Oh, and one last thing...

    People have sailed all the way around without falling off, which actually only proves that gravity exists.
    Does it?
    Last edited by emtee10; December 25th, 2005 at 11:47 AM.
    -=]emtee10[=-
    ODN Super Moderator



    I'll give you a hint. Contradictions do not exist. Whenever you think that you are facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong.
    - Francisco d'Anconia, Atlas Shrugged

 

 
Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Absolute truth vs Relative truth
    By starcreator in forum Philosophical Debates
    Replies: 65
    Last Post: November 27th, 2012, 11:49 AM
  2. Absolute Truth
    By DeviantNorm in forum Philosophical Debates
    Replies: 342
    Last Post: February 15th, 2008, 08:51 AM
  3. The universe is infinite
    By Supaiku in forum Philosophical Debates
    Replies: 95
    Last Post: December 7th, 2005, 04:48 PM
  4. Replies: 116
    Last Post: June 21st, 2005, 07:29 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •