Should Intelligent Design be taught in schools? (page 7)

EvilForce

The first LDS prophet got shot - where was God? - waiting for him. This world isn't paradise - its a form of spiritual death in that we are separated from God - after gaining our unique individual experiences here its just not feasible to expect God to hold us back. They said similar things to Jesus when He was on the cross - if youve got the power why don't you save yourself..

The arguement could carry on forever - if God intervenes to stop death then He has to stop killing diseases, after that everyone would whinge that He was unfair since He lets people get injured or get colds - soon we are back to the Garden of Eden and we can never meet God because of the fall - we are stuck as we are -

Though death sucks I think staying here would suck even more.

Religion and science DO NOT MIX!!!!

seattleniceguy

No. ID does not make any positive predictions about the natural world and therefore has no scientific value.

SNG

metatron

The dogma of Darwinism is so intense that, unfortunately, Creationist groups are nearly

alone in challenging it. Any scientist or writer who dares question it risks their career or public

reputation. Richard Milton has detailed his suppression and suffering of ad hominem attacks

by Dawkins. Forrest Mims suffered from a similar "inquisition".

I believe it was James Shapiro who wrote a number of brilliant essays in which he attacked

what he called the "dialogue of the deaf" in which Darwinism is rigidly defended against

creationist attacks - while all alternatives are rebuffed.

I increasingly see modern biology as founded on unacknowledged faith - often as bad

as its creationist critics are infused with. Evolution? Yes - but a third way needs to be

developed that frees us from these dogmatists in both camps. That's partly why I like

ID - and wish that its critics would simply yell "Pantheists!" at the literal six day

types who are supposed to be its supporters.

metatron

tetrapod.sapien

:The dogma of Darwinism is so intense that, unfortunately, Creationist groups are nearly

evolution is a scientific theory. and as such, it welcomes challenge. it welcomes people coming and shooting *legitimate* holes through it. all that would be required to turn it on it's a** is to find hominid fossils in the carboniferous strata, and have them conclusively dated as being from such. did you know that? it's not dogma, it's caution. caution against politics. and if creationist groups are the only ones out there "challenging it", perhaps they should take a look at why that is so instead of assuming that it *must* be challeneged for lack of better things to do with their time.

:Richard Milton has detailed his suppression and suffering of ad hominem attacks

frankly, if dawkins was thowing ad homs at milton, then it's because milton had exasperated him with his idiocy to the point of ad hominems. no one needs dawkin's ad homs to make ToE anymore convincing. "come down off the cross we could use the wood."

:I increasingly see modern biology as founded on unacknowledged faith

what else do you "see"? other conspiracies of evil atheist scientists and skeptics going around trashing alternative science? ok. must be so then, if you say so.

:but a third way needs to be

the theory of evolution can be challenged. but the new theory would have to address the data and evidence *better* than the current theory, and make positive predictions for future finds and future data. ID does not do this. there is no functional working theory that ID'ers have presented the scientific community which does these things. and as such, it cannot just be ushered into science classes to "compliment" ToE as cell mates. all it does is talk about ireducible complexity and postulate the cause of life. evolution addresses ireducible complexity AND does not even begin to deal with the cause of life because the issue is about how life evolved. cause is for philosophy and religious studies.

Qcmbr

Last post on this topic for me - its gets a bit pointless suggesting we should be open minded when clearly people are more interested in character attacks to get their point across. If you have no doubt about evolution fine - as for me I look at the evidence and disagree. Scientists have a woeful record so far in getting things right - I can't think of one theory proposed by scientists that hasn't been replaced / modified / radically altered as we learn more.

I will stand for God, religion, prophets, intelligence not randomness, questioning not point scoring, creation not macro evolution, the soul not animated meat, reasons not just 'because it is.' I don't ask anyone to take that journey with me but I do ask them to respectit and to respect my desire not see our schools become so close minded that they teach a barely understood principle that has many scientists working on it and exclude all other ideas.

EvilForce

Sorry Q, didn't mean to attack you personally but your post made me angry....maybe I'm just in a bad mood.

Religion has never been a bastion of scientific advance. The LDS are just as guilty as the Dub's. No better no worse. But save creationism for Sunday School and Science theory for school. That is how you balance it out. So many ideas, inventions, and discoveries have been demonized by the various organized religions of the day it's disgusting.

My apologies if I attacked you unfairly Q :)

hooberus

Anyone who believes evolution CAN exactly tell you how evolution COULD BE proved wrong. That is what makes evolution a scientific theory, NOT the overwelming evidence in its favor.

Please tell us how evolution could be falsified.

Qcmbr

Ok I lied, thanks EF.

AlanF

hooberus said:

: Please tell us how evolution could be falsified.

By finding unequivocal evidence that, say, man and dinosaurs lived together. By that, I don't mean silly things like the Paluxy River "mantracks", which now even the ICR discredits.

Lots of things like that would falsify evolution.

Now of course, everyone knows that young-earth creationism is no more falsifiable than is Last-Tuesdayism.

AlanF

jaredg

Actually from my point of view God is the one who framed the natural laws so even though an individual tornado is merely the obedience to those laws doesn't mean he can't control them when He wants to:

Jesus and the storm.
Parting the sea for the Israelites.
Enoch moving the mountain (or is that just in LDS history.?)
Plagues of Egypt.
Darkness at the time of the cruxifiction.
New star at Jesus' birth.
Walking on water

Q....so bascially what you said in the first phrase is that "GOD DID IT". maybe he didn't actually cause the tornado but he "caused" the forces that made the tornado. that reasoning is not scientific!!! remember that the idea of god's are as old as mankind. the greeks believed that the forces of nature were the direct result of gods but they assigned god's to each natural force so you got apollo as the god of the sun, hephaestus as the god of fire, psoeidon the god of earthquakes so on and etc.

i'm not saying that there is no god or even that god didn't created things BUT what i am saying is that for science class to teach intelligent design is wrong b/c it's not scientific!! it should be saved for philosophy class. get it?

Should Intelligent Design be taught in schools?

Share this