Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

Since no one knows teach it all and discuss it,knowing its only a debate.TADA!! :p

---

There is no debate.

This is about a few people making a lot of noise.

Everyone seems to be missing the point. It doesn't matter what you believe. What matters is that you can recognize what is science and what is not.

If it doesn't utilize the scientific method, it is not science.

In a science class, you do not "discuss" things that are not science. You discuss science. Intelligent design is not science. Therefore, you shouldn't discuss intelligent design in a science class.

All _real_ scientists, regardless of their personal beliefs, know that creationism is not science. If you think creationism is science, then you are not a scientist.
As a side note, if you regularly use the phrase "just a theory" or don't know the difference between a theory, a fact, and a hypothesis, you aren't a scientist either.

In other words, people who actually know what they are talking about know that creationism has no place in a science class.

I feel like I am repeating myself over and over and you guys don't seem to get it. I don't care what you believe, I care about science.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rickj

Science, not science. Who cares?

---

Because it is important to teach children the difference between the scientific method and faith. If you cloud the distinction, and teach intelligent design as science, you are going to undermine human progress for the last three hundred years.

And, on top of that, do you honestly think real universities are going to accept "Creationist Biology" as a prerequisite for college-level life science classes? You'd have to be out of your mind if you think this sort of thing will prepare children for medical school.


psi42

I believe in God and everything all around us is his Will.My understanding of Him will come as I grow to understand the universe around me.If I had to wait for science to explain all that is unknown I would be lost.So the best I can do is Believe and pray for guidance and understanding.I'll keep living and learning. :cool: :cool:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

If I had to wait for science to explain all that is unknown I would be lost.

---

Some of us like that feeling. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SSchultz0956

QUESTION: If everything came from a single-celled organism, where did the design for the organism come from?

---

Lets put that another way:

Which came first the chicken or the egg ?

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wizzkid89

...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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

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 though 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. :cool:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

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 ?

Till we know for sure all we can do is talk and one idea is as good as another so call it anything you want its just an opinion not science. :cool:

Here's something thought provoking and ridiculous at the same time (more ridiculous 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 ridiculous 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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SSchultz0956

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 occurring by chance is extremely high, but you can't prove its impossible. That would be trying to prove a negative.

Scott<>

Hi,
I am reminded of the joke about the Law of Gravity.
A small boy said in class, "if there wasn't a Law, then there would be no Gravity".

If there weren't laws against "church and state", then there would be Intelligent Design, taught in any subject area a school board chooses. But, according to the following quote, it's becoming "outlawed": From Nov. 5, 2005:

"by Amy Worden
Philadelphia Inquirer

Intelligent design will soon be history in Dover Area High School science classes, following an election that is reverberating around the country.

Voters on Tuesday ousted eight of the nine members of the school board, currently defendants in the first lawsuit over the teaching of intelligent design in public schools. Replacing them is a bipartisan slate of "pro-evolution" candidates who say intelligent design, with its biblical leanings, has no place in the high school biology curriculum.

The victory for Darwin's theory, the undisputed foundation of modern biology, in the York County school district came on the same day the Kansas State Board of Education approved public school science standards that cast doubt on the theory of evolution.

"The Dover election is a real shot across the bow to school boards anticipating passing these policies," said Eugenie Scott, executive director of the National Center for Science Education, a group dedicated to defending evolution."

Faith is again, out the window in public schools, for the time being. Deciding which subject area to teach ID is somewhat mute now. History has a way of repeating itself, and eventually will reappear.

That's American democracy at work. Although the article seemed a little biased.

Thank you for your points Fred.

As I have said all along, I don't think that the teaching of ID is a problem.
The problem is which subject to teach it in !

As the Dover farce has shown, if they had recommended it be taught as Religious Studies, there wouldn't of been a problem. As they insisted as teaching it as science that is how the out cry started and to insist on taking their case to court as well has annoyed a lot of people.

As normal, if a contensious subject is handle with tact then you will succeed, otherwise it is doomed to failure.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fredg

Faith is again, out the window in public schools, for the time being. Deciding which subject area to teach ID is somewhat mute now. History has a way of repeating itself, and eventually will reappear.

---

Your hypocrisy is showing again, Fred. You have previously supported the will of the majority. Well that's what happened in Dover. As Need said, "democracy at work".

Faith SHOULD be out in PUBLIC schools. Faith is a religious subject, it should be taught in religious institutions and/or in the home.

And I think you meant "moot", though "mute", is what I hope the proponents of ID as a science become.

Scott<>

Hi,
It would be nice, for a change, to read something from ScottGem without his usual condemnation of a personal nature.
"Water off a duck's back" is the term. Or, should I say a Turkey's back?
Happy Thanksgiving.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fredg

Hi,
It would be nice, for a change, to read something from ScottGem without his usual condemnation of a personal nature.
"Water off a duck's back" is the term. Or, should I say a Turkey's back?
Happy Thanksgiving.

---

Fred, Fred, Fred, We have been over this so many times before.
I've mentioned several times about your penchant for false generalizations. The fact is that my responses rarely include a "condemnation of a personal nature". But sometimes, when a comment is so off the wall, its hard
To condemn what one has written without condemning the person writing it. But I try to restrict my comments to what was actually said.

And your writings here WERE hypocritical. On the one hand you have supported the will of the majority, but when that majority will is exercised you complain about it because it doesn't fit your desires.

Scott<>

Probably should put this elsewhere,but as I "know" most of the other members who have responded to this thread,I thought you might like to view this link (with apologies to Curlyben for "wrecking" his original post),to Carl Sagan.Even here in the UK,years after his death,he is still respected amongst the scientific community.As a kid,here in the UK, I remember watching many interesting programs that he hosted for the BBC:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/time/sagan.html

His views on alien civillisations,time travel,plus many others,are interesting to read.There's even an audio link,to the right of the page,so you can hear the great man's thoughts yourselves.You'l need to have RealAudio installed to hear Mr Sagan.
At the bottom of the page are more useful links,to more wonders of life,the universe,etc. :D

No worries Nez, an excellent post.
Doesn't really address the point I'm trying to make, but opens other avenues of discussion.
As I mentioned earlier, why does the 'designer' have to be God, in any form.

I love the Hitchhickers Guide explanation of the Great Green Arcleseizure (sp) and sneezing the whole universe into existence ;)