At Ask Me Help Desk you can ask questions in any topic and have them
answered for free by our experts. To ask questions or participate in
answering them you must register for a free account. By registering you
will be able to:
Get free answers from experts in any of our 300+
topics.
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.
I agree with scott and the psi42, ID can't be taught as a science because you use logic in trying to explain it instead of cold hard facts, and any kind of science has studies that have been done to prove it or at least create theories. And psi is totally right when saying if it doesn't use the scientific method then it isn't science, so all in all, is ID a science no, could it be taught sure, would it be interesting, who knows?
...ID can't be taught as a science because you use logic in trying to explain it instead of cold hard facts...
I'm not quite sure i can grasp the idea that flew through my mind right now, but i'll say what i can and you try to clarify it for me.
Mathematics is a science (at least it's in Science part of this forum). There are "things" in mathematics that do not exist (well, most of mathematics is just ideas), but you can explain them. You make axioms and use logic to explain some imaginary "objects" you just "created" (which could once be used to calculate something that physicians could use to create something). Does it make mathematics un-scientific? I know that you could call those "proofs" you make about such objects (that come from logical thinking) "cold hard facts", but those "facts" are based on axioms - if you change axioms, you change the "facts". If you change what you believe in, you can change the logical order of thinking that comes from such beliefs.
This post is so confusing and it has nothing to do with ID, i know, but i just don't agree with the quoted text.
If I had to wait for science to explain all that is unknown I would be lost.
I bet you don't know how a nuclear reactor works or a hydroelectric power plant but yet you can still use the electricity all around you. All this is provided to you through the benefits of science. You aren't lost really, you just don't need to understand that part in order to live your life. If you are trying to understand everything around you then how do you make it through a day?
You are correct.I found at a young age I could function in this world by accepting certain things for what they are and use them.even tho this is a confusing post I still believe that it is important to debate the concept of ID.To be honest Why can't God be a superscientist who designed all things to work just as they appear to us?We are just to dumb(or not smart enough)to figure it out.
Why can't God be a superscientist who designed all things
This is the main problem with ID is that it is getting confused with Creationism.
So where does FAITH come it to all this ??
As has been previously posted, the start of life on Earth could be due to an alien "seed" brought here from another planet. Why does there have to be any supreme being involved at all ?
Here's something thought provoking and rediculous at the same time (more rediculous than provocative):
It was stated earlier that logic can't be prove science. Humor me. Let's say there is no such thing as gravity. This sounds rediculous to all of us including me. What if, however, there was no such gravity, what if everything in the universe was constantly doubling in size. It's stupid, i know, but just think about it for a second. What if the rate of speed of things dropping is just the rate at which things grow. It's not true, but think what if certain things in science we and everybody in the world accepts, but isn't true.
Here's something thought provoking and rediculous at the same time (more rediculous than provocative):
It was stated earlier that logic can't be prove science. Humor me. Let's say there is no such thing as gravity. This sounds rediculous to all of us including me. What if, however, there was no such gravity, what if everything in the universe was constantly doubling in size. It's stupid, i know, but just think about it for a second. What if the rate of speed of things dropping is just the rate at which things grow. It's not true, but think what if certain things in science we and everybody in the world accepts, but isn't true.
Your arguments are facetious. The point is gravity is a physical law provable extremely easy. Try jumping and see if you stay in the air. Physics is a science because physical laws can be proven using establish experimentation. There is no amount of experimentation that can prove ID. The closest you can come is trying to prove a negative. You can prove that the odds of the complexity of DNA occuring by chance is extremely high, but you can't prove its impossible. That would be trying to prove a negative.
Linear Mode
