Ok I know that this is a contentious issue, but I believe that it needs to be talked about.

This has been mentioned in other threads, but I thought that it was time for a thread of its own.

The main problem that I have is how can Intelligent Design (ID) be taught as a SCIENCE when it is based TOTALLY on faith?
At least Evolution is a Theory and until it is disproved or updated it’s the best we have.
ID has it place in Religious Studies NOT in science.


Now I am looking for some reasoned arguments here NOT just opinionated mudslinging

speedball1

Thank you Starman, The debate ends now. I couldn't prove my point any better then you just did.

"As for the proof you require, I garnered some web site links"

You sure did and as I have always claimed not one of the "Proofs" (Coppied from The Bountiful Joy website again?) give any physical evedence of Creation but not being able to prove Creation the only thing they can do is attack evolution and attempt to muddy the waters. All of your so called "proofs" do just that. Just look at the titles of the "proofs you put up. Tippty-tap tippty-tap and a soft shoe slide! (Sounds of hands clapping!!)

SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE AGAINST EVOLUTION.
Evidence Disproving Evolution
against evolution)
Macroevolution fails to explain the history of life on planet earth.
Evolution Exposé
A collection of essays and articles which refute the theory of evolution
Scientific Arguments Against Evolution

Starman, I respect your views and you have good debating skills but you gotta admit that the sites did more to attack evolution then to prove intelligent design. My point exactly!! Rick and Tal are right, this debate's become both boring and repetitive. As far as I'm concerned, the debate's over, done, finished!! ( And you did debate very well) Regards and respect, Tom

Starman

I consider all the sites attacking the existence of a creator to be muddying of the waters. So I guess we have that in common. Yes, there are more who choose to believe in mindless organization of matter into complex biological machines based on what evolutionists prefer to say. That's OK. But that doesn't constitute proof. It only shows preference of the majority to go in that particular direction for many reasons. To not be considered ignorant. Because of blind faith and unquestioning trust in scientists. In order to feel they are accountable to no-one and can do as they please. Because of lacking critical thinking ability, or simply because it makes more sense to them for some other reason.


But you are right, this discussion is really redundant and will not go beyond what it already has gone. But this isn't due to my reluctance to address the issue. This is due to the constant evasion of anything that smacks of being irrefutable via changing of the subject, refusal to be consistent in the application of the scientific method, a predisposition to view all scientists and their statements as silly if they believe in a creator despite their qualifications, and a tendency to fly off the handle via resorting to mockery and fallacious reasoning.

In any case, I am willing to throw in the towel and bring this useless discussion to a halt. No problem.

BTW

My only attempt at debating here was in reference to the arrowhead example and I was skillfully evaded via being presented with a false analogy and being classified as unreasonable for not accepting the false analogy. Another p[oster claimed not to understand inconsistency. That put an end to any attemprt at debate.

Everything else was just padding or pitter-pattering in order to counter the tipity tapping.

Curlyben

Reopened

ordinaryguy

Why? Has kicking the cigs aroused your bloodlust to watch mortal combat?

Capuchin

I missed this debate the first time round. I like discussing issues like this... maybe we need a new thread with new direction, though.