Intelligent Design is not creationism

[pattersb]

Quote from traderNik:

We do not advocate 'denying belief' in a Creator God. We simply say 'Let us provide proofs for our hypotheses. Let us not assert that something is true because our heart tells us it is true and then subsequently claim that this personal belief should form the basis for school curricula'.

you do understand that you are describing faith, and then in the same sentence suggesting it is meaningless in the scientific process.

"school curricula"...

There are many people faithful to their religion who would like to send the children to schools that are sympathetic to their views. These people should be given school-vouchers which would allow them to send there children to the schools of the choice.

From their cold-dead hands will the liberals let the monopoly of public schools be ripped from there hands. How can they control the "liberal, progressive, anti-religious" thinking of today's youth.

"GOD IS DEAD!"


Does anyone think Science History should be banned from public schools??? ID has already been covered many times through out history.

http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~js/ast123/lectures/lec01.html


The same people who shriek about banning books are the first to fight tooth and nail to ban a theory, and disallow people from having a free choice as to how and where their kids are educated. Simply advocating for Science History courses that cover past versions of ID might suffice.


"insipid christians ..." . ... blah

 

[james_bond_3rd]

Quote from pattersb:

you do understand that you are describing faith, and then in the same sentence suggesting it is meaningless in the scientific process.

"school curricula"...

There are many people faithful to their religion who would like to send the children to schools that are sympathetic to their views. These people should be given school-vouchers which would allow them to send there children to the schools of the choice.

From their cold-dead hands will the liberals let the monopoly of public schools be ripped from there hands. How can they control the "liberal, progressive, anti-religious" thinking of today's youth.

"GOD IS DEAD!"


Does anyone think Science History should be banned from public schools??? ID has already been covered many times through out history.

http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~js/ast123/lectures/lec01.html


The same people who shriek about banning books are the first to fight tooth and nail to ban a theory, and disallow people from having a free choice as to how and where their kids are educated. Simply advocating for Science History courses that cover past versions of ID might suffice.


"insipid christians ..." . ... blah

Science history does not belong in a science class. It belongs in social studies. It's perfectly fine to teach historic debates on ID in a social studies class. Just don't masquerade ID as science.

"Liberals" are not trying to ban a theory. They're fighting the Church's definition of "science". The Church (or Churches?) have a very poor track record when it comes to science. How long was it when they finally gave up the geocentric doctrine?

If you want your children to be brainwashed by the Church, that's fine. No one is taking your free choice away. But don't ask for taxpayer's money to do it.

 

[Teleologist]

TraderNik wrote:

We do not advocate 'denying belief' in a Creator God. We simply say 'Let us provide proofs for our hypotheses. Let us not assert that something is true because our heart tells us it is true and then subsequently claim that this personal belief should form the basis for school curricula'.

Who is advocating that personal belief should form the basis for school curricula?

TraderNik wrote:

If the argument is that a Creator God can never be 'proved' in the scientific sense, then let us leave it where it belongs; in the realm of faith.

ID isn't about proving a Creator God in the scientific sense.

TraderNik wrote:

And once again, ad nauseam, is it not bizarre that the Creationists claim on one hand that the central idea of ID/Creation is that it is a scientifically provable alternative to evolution, and then turn right around, as we see here, and complain that science is a faith based belief system that is untenable.

I'm not aware of any creationists on this thread so I don't know who you are arguing with. ID is not anti-evolution. I never claimed ID was scientifically provable. I never claimed ID was a scientific theory.

TraderNik wrote:

I have asked the question 20 times in this thread and have been met with deafening silence on the issue.

What question was that? The one about proving ID? I never claimed to have a magic bullet test to distinguish design from non-design. You, on the other hand, evidently think there is such a test. When I asked you how does one determine something is not designed, you replied:

The same way you determine that something is not an Alien artifact.

Okay, let's say a Mount Rushmore like structure is found on Mars. Did it originate through design or non-design? What would your method of distinguishing design from non-design tell us?

 

[Teleologist]

For those that keep asking for proof of ID, consider what Allen MacNeill says:

One of the very first points I make in my lectures on introductory biology and evolution courses at Cornell is that science never "proves" anything (in the logical/mathematical sense), nor is science able to establish that something is "true" (when, by "true," one means "absolutely true in all possible cases").

 

[james_bond_3rd]

Quote from Teleologist:

For those that keep asking for proof of ID, consider what Allen MacNeill says: "One of the very first points I make in my lectures on introductory biology and evolution courses at Cornell is that science never "proves" anything (in the logical/mathematical sense), nor is science able to establish that something is "true" (when, by "true," one means "absolutely true in all possible cases")."

First of all, can you come up with something your own instead of copycat ID websites? I'm really getting tired of your lack of original thoughts.

You have absolutely no idea what Prof. MacNeill is talking about. Do you know the meaning of the words in the parantheses of your quote?

In a criminal court, the standard for conviction is "proof beyond reasonable doubt." It is not "proof beyond all doubt." It can be definitely argued that in no court a criminal act can be proven with 100% certainty based on any amount of evidence. However, what separates reasonable people, and fanatics, is that reasonable people can convict criminals when they're 99% confident of the evidence, while (some liberal) fanatics demand 100% certainty.

Similarly, no scientific method can "prove" anything with 100% certainty. Yet we usually accept overwhelming empirical evidence as "proof" of a scientific theory. Not in the logical/mathematical sense, as Prof. MacNeill pointed out. But they are definitely proof in the empirical sense.

Your ID theory doesn't even have the kind of empirical proof that a normal scientific theory demands. Of course, on the logical/mathematical level, ID theory is sheer nonsense.

 

[stu]

Quote from Teleologist:


Okay, let's say a Mount Rushmore like structure is found on Mars. Did it originate through design or non-design? What would your method of distinguishing design from non-design tell us?

Did it form and develop its shape from countless generations, self replicating offspring over millions of years from basic simple single particles, the ones which were able to survive passing on small changes, becoming more and more complex evolving eventually to a rock face full of recognizable shapes?

If no, it is an artifact.
If yes it wouldn't need a designer. Its form evolves naturally.

 

[Teleologist]

James Bond wrote:

Similarly, no scientific method can "prove" anything with 100% certainty.

Which is exactly my point you idiot. The ID critics keep asking for proof of ID when they should be asking for evidence of ID.

 

[Teleologist]

Stu wrote:

If no, it is an artifact.

So your test confirms that the Mount Rushmore-like structure on Mars is an artifact?

 

[james_bond_3rd]

Quote from Teleologist:

James Bond wrote:
"Similarly, no scientific method can "prove" anything with 100% certainty."

Which is exactly my point you idiot. The ID critics keep asking for proof of ID when they should be asking for evidence of ID.

"Proof of ID" means overwhelming empirical evidence for ID you idiot . Not just circumstancial evidence. Why did you crop my second setence off that included "overwhelming empirical evidence?" Was it because it didn't fit your argument?

Don't distort my words, you idiot.

 

[pattersb]

Quote from james_bond_3rd:

Science history does not belong in a science class. It belongs in social studies. It's perfectly fine to teach historic debates on ID in a social studies class. Just don't masquerade ID as science.

"Liberals" are not trying to ban a theory. They're fighting the Church's definition of "science". The Church (or Churches?) have a very poor track record when it comes to science. How long was it when they finally gave up the geocentric doctrine?

If you want your children to be brainwashed by the Church, that's fine. No one is taking your free choice away. But don't ask for taxpayer's money to do it.

how about property tax breaks for those who privately educate their kids? They pay taxes also. From the liberals cold-dead hands will they reliquinsh their monopoly on public education.

"brainwashed by the church". Newton was a biblical scholar. I'll wait for the santa claus prick to pop up. In a country whose morality is going down the toliet, (not coincidently while the "GOD IS DEAD" crowd is gaining more and more ground), the prick attacks santa claus.

In any event, you've conceded that there is a place for ID and other theories of existence in public schools, besides teaching kids the the "fact" that everything just sort of happened after an explosion.

Victory!