Should Intelligent Design be taught in schools?

by AlmostAtheist 83 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  metatron

  "Evolution" doesn't "welcome" anyone, since it is not a person. I don't argue against

  evolution , just the dominant, materialistic view of it that permeates the world - and the

  suppression of those who attempt to offer a different opinion - such as is well documented

  in the case of Richard Milton and Forrest Mims and Rupert Sheldrake, to name a few.

  If you wish to imagine a conspiracy of 'evil atheist scientists' , godspeed to you.

  For me, it is simply necessary to recall that science is still a construct of human reasoning

  and often subject to the same 'crowd behavior' as all other human endeavors.

  I had hope that someone might take note when Celera announced that the human genome

  "is not a blueprint" and discern that living things are not machines and should not be

  philosophically classified as such. If I live a thousand years, perhaps the world will

  wake up........

  metatron
• 

  EvilForce

  For you creationists... where does dinosaurs fit into your argument?
  
  Nuff said....
• 

  Daunt

  The opposite is even worse Metatron. People were killed for these ideas back in the day. But in these days you can have whatever view you want to have, a lot of times without severe retaliation. Just don't expect it to have any credibility in a field that doesn't allow that stuff. Sheesh what if evolution was trying to rewrite the bible when evolution doesnt belong in the bible. Bet everybody would be in an uproar. (and im getting kinda tired of this personification of Evolution. It isn't a relation just a series of information and possible hypothesis'. Not reasonable to use Evolution as a base for everything you do. It's just information. Nobodies forcing anything).
• 

  tetrapod.sapien

  metatron: "godspeed to you"
  
  thanks! darwinspeed to you!
  
  
  metatron: "it is simply necessary to recall that science is still a construct of human reasoning"
  
  as opposed to god reasoning?
  
  
  metatron: "If I live a thousand years, perhaps the world will wake up........"
  
  interesting! with current advances in biogerontology, perhaps you will be around to wake me up!
• 

  hooberus

  : 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.

  Please explain where such evidence could hypothetically be found, and how then such a find would falsify evolution.
• 

  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.

  : Please explain where such evidence could hypothetically be found, and how then such a find would falsify evolution.

  Are you deliberately trying to look stupid?

  You know the answer perfectly well. Nevertheless, I'll humor you.

  The evidence could be found anywhere in the world where fossils are normally found.

  If uneqivocal skeletons of a dinosaur and a human were found together -- say, like where a T-Rex had swallowed a man whole and the human skeleton was inside the rib cage of the T-Rex -- then that would prove that humans and dinosaurs lived together. That in turn would disprove the standard geological timescale, which would throw a huge monkey wrench into every interpretation of paleontological evidence that depends on it. If humans and dinosaurs lived together, then the entire framework of mammalian evolution would be invalidated, since no paleontological evidence could properly be interpreted as forming a sequence in time, and without a sequence in time of various life forms, you don't have evolution.

  AlanF
• 

  funkyderek

  A good article on the subject:

  http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4216
• 

  Abaddon

  funky

  Should a history class studying World War II be made aware of the beliefs of Holocaust deniers

  Yes. Just as they should be taught the beliefs people have regarding WoMD.

  But other than that, what you said.

  Any idiot can see ID is just a Trojan Horse for Creationism.

  A theory which requires complex things to have an intelligent designer and fails to explain how the complexity of the intelligent designer arose is far closer to Ug the caveman than science.

  It is a contradiction in terms and very silly.
• 

  hooberus

  A theory which requires complex things to have an intelligent designer and fails to explain how the complexity of the intelligent designer arose is far closer to Ug the caveman than science.

  The point that you are attempting to make seems to be that design cannot be scientifically inferred for the origin of an object -unless the origin of its proposed designer can also be explained. I think that this is incorrect.

  For example: If an observer in space were to come across the voyager spacecraft adrift would they first be required to explain how the complexity of its designer came about before theorizing and seeing evidence that it was a product of intelligent design?
• 

  AlmostAtheist

  For example: If an observer in space were to come across the voyager spacecraft adrift would they first be required to explain how the complexity of its designer came about before theorizing and seeing evidence that it was a product of intelligent design?

  No, but they couldn't argue that the complex thing in front of them required a designer by virtue of the fact that it is complex, without also acknowledging that the ones that designed it would also have required a designer. The logical statement "complex things require a designer" only stands as a logical statement if you apply it evenly. You can't use it to defend a form of creationism without also accepting that the God allegedly behind it would also by that same logic require a designer. You don't have to explain how he came to be, but you have to accept that he also required a designer.

  Or abandon the "complex things require a designer" line of reasoning.

  Dave