Intelligent Design is not creationism

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

I would not expose him to any one theory at the expense of alternative theories.

My position is no ID or non-ID in public schools, but if non-ID must be taught, also teach ID as alternative theory.

Frankly, I would not talk theory until his mind was truly capable of understanding the concept of scientific theory.

That doesn't happen for most kids until college level.

I believe in a strong foundation before building structures, and it takes a long time for the mind to "evolve" to the point where certain things can be truly understood, truly questioned, and truly stand up to critical reasoning.

This doesn't happen in grade school, so teaching theories in grade school is nothing but indoctrination.

Even many high school kids don't really understand what theories really are, their flaws, their weaknesses and their utility in certain situations.

Study of biological organism and their nature can be done without any theory necessary, and to propagate theory as fact is just plain wrong.

Quote from vhehn:

you as his teacher have already said you will not expose him to the theory of evolution.

 

[I am...]

Quote from vhehn:

i have come to the conclusion its pretty much a waste of time to argue with believers on the basis of evidence. those of use that believe in evidence as our guide will spend hours compiling the evidence but when we present it to a closed minded believer they will dismiss it without even looking at it and say "my faith tells me goddidit".

"The very concept of faith is an insult to human intelligence. If you take something on faith, you are in effect saying, "I don't need evidence, facts, or logic. Evidence is worthless, facts are for ninnies, logic is nonsense. I'll believe whatever I want even if reality overwhelmingly shows that it's just not true." "

Reason leads to truth. But truth cannot be learned. It can only be recognized. Faith is an investment in what one believes is his salvation. Faith can go to either side. When invested in illusions, great faith is required to yield small effects. When invested in the truth, a small faith, the size of a mustard seed, is all that's required to move a mountain.

Both you and the believers that mirror you place faith in separateness and inequality with God. These are merely two versions of the same choice in the same illusion. Illusions can clash, but illusion cannot clash with the truth. Because truth cannot be learned, there will be no "proof" forthcoming. There are however, "witnesses" that indicate that the truth is true.



Peace,

Jesus

 

[FanOfFridays]

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

In my world, Johnny is exposed to every piece of information available, and makes up his own mind. He doesn't believe things on the basis of faith

Well, he's not going to believe in ID then, seeing as it's a purely faith-based system of belief (so far - still waiting on that link, request #19) !!

And by the way... exposing oneself to as much (often contradictory) information as possible is something that we do, over on our side. It's not something the Church takes too kindly to. After all, there is no possibility of questioning the core of one's belief, for the true believer. We, on the other hand, are perfectly happy to question even our most cherished beliefs, as long as someone provides us with even the slightest shred of proof.

The greatest moment for the true scientist is when he admits that his cherished theories have been proven wrong.

For the true believers here, that will never, ever happen. That is the essence of faith.

Case closed.

 

[FanOfFridays]

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

Frankly, I would not talk theory until his mind was truly capable of understanding the concept of scientific theory.

That doesn't happen for most kids until college level.

Study of biological organism and their nature can be done without any theory necessary

wtf???

 

[Free Thinker]

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

Frankly, I would not talk theory until his mind was truly capable of understanding the concept of scientific theory.

i dont think you understand it yet either. you still think it is equal to faith.

 

[kjkent1]

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

In my world, Johnny is exposed to every piece of information available, and makes up his own mind. He doesn't believe things on the basis of faith in others and their opinions, he decides for himself based on his own life experiences, his intuition, and his own common sense.

Johnny is not fed a random ignorant chance theory, nor an ID theory in the public school system as something that he needs to believe in order to viewed as "intelligent" by his peers.

Johnny becomes his own man, not a clone of what atheists or theists think he should be.

The "ignorant random chance theory" is a scientific fact. You're imputing intelligence to randomness without any scientific proof.

Your faith dictates that random chance is not random. Statistical measurements of randomness show that random "is" random.

Nothing more is required by the theory of evolution.

Science measures what can be observed, which includes that which can only be measured by probability.

Faith measures what cannot be observed, which includes that which cannot be measured by probability.

Proving that random is not random would undermine all science in every discipline. However, if you can do it, then do it.

Until you do, the scientific evidence demonstrates that random "is." OTH, there is no test for God.

Therefore, scientifically speaking, evolution is the product of random chance -- not God -- until someone scientifically proves otherwise.

Which, as has been previously explained, ad nauseam, is impossible without permitting the existence of magic -- a subject defined by its ability to withstand any possible scientific measurement.

And, so the battle continues. The faithful demand that science measure the unmeasurable so as to disprove the unmeasurable's existence. Otherwise, the unmeasurable exists, because it cannot be measured.

The scientist demands that the faithful provide measurable evidence of the unmeasurable so as to prove the unmeasurable's existence. Otherwise, the unmeasurable does not exist, because it cannot be measured.

 

[james_bond_3rd]

Quote from kjkent1:

...The faithful demand that science measure the unmeasurable so as to disprove the unmeasurable's existence. Otherwise, the unmeasurable exists, because it cannot be measured.

The scientist demands that the faithful provide measurable evidence of the unmeasurable so as to prove the unmeasurable's existence. Otherwise, the unmeasurable does not exist, because it cannot be measured.

Is this a tongue twister?

 

[I am...]

Quote from kjkent1:



And, so the battle continues. The faithful demand that science measure the unmeasurable so as to disprove the unmeasurable's existence. Otherwise, the unmeasurable exists, because it cannot be measured.

The scientist demands that the faithful provide measurable evidence of the unmeasurable so as to prove the unmeasurable's existence. Otherwise, the unmeasurable does not exist, because it cannot be measured.

As you measure, it is measured back to you.

Jesus

 

[Thunderdog]

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

I would not expose him to any one theory at the expense of alternative theories.

Including the mind-numbing quackery of creationism disguised as "Intelligent Design?" So you would assign no more weight to a theory supported by a myriad of facts than you would to a flight of fancy?

Z, you are not very credible. You have more posts than anyone else here at ET and I have not once seen you admit to a mistake. Ever. Frankly, I don't trust people who are never wrong, particularly those who also need not consult any facts in arriving at their conclusions. You may think that you're clever, and equate your exchanges here to a chess master victoriously playing several opponents simultaneously. But make no mistake, that is not how it is coming across. You're not as smart as you think you are.

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

A cryptographer working for the CIA comes across some message intercepted from one terrorist to another.

He exclaims:

"I can find absolutely no pattern in this coding."

Does he conclude then that the message is the product of random ignorant chance, simply because he cannot find a pattern, or think of a way to discover a pattern? Does just throw away the message, and conclude that since he can't find a pattern, then no pattern exists?

Or does he assume that there is a pattern, but that he hasn't recognized it yet? Does he then begin to think outside of the box, and approach the problem from angles not generally applied?

Now, does science observe biological organisms going about their business, and conclude there is no pattern that they can find, and therefore conclude with scientific certainty that all the doings of biological organisms are simply random chance ignorant, unplanned, unrelated happenings?

He does if he is a poor scientist. If he is a real hack, he takes his failure to find pattern, erects an entire philosophy of natural science on the basis of his failure, and attracts people of like mind to his thinking...

A true scientist would conclude that there is no pattern or design that he can observe but that he can't rule it out either. He would not build a theory based on his failure to find a pattern. He would stick with what he knows, not what he doesn't know.

He stays objective and agnostic and continues his research...

By the way, it is you, not I that are talking about God.

I am talking about design vs. non design as being the foundation of life as we know it.

Quote from kjkent1:

The "ignorant random chance theory" is a scientific fact. You're imputing intelligence to randomness without any scientific proof.

Your faith dictates that random chance is not random. Statistical measurements of randomness show that random "is" random.

Nothing more is required by the theory of evolution.

Science measures what can be observed, which includes that which can only be measured by probability.

Faith measures what cannot be observed, which includes that which cannot be measured by probability.

Proving that random is not random would undermine all science in every discipline. However, if you can do it, then do it.

Until you do, the scientific evidence demonstrates that random "is." OTH, there is no test for God.

Therefore, scientifically speaking, evolution is the product of random chance -- not God -- until someone scientifically proves otherwise.

Which, as has been previously explained, ad nauseam, is impossible without permitting the existence of magic -- a subject defined by its ability to withstand any possible scientific measurement.

And, so the battle continues. The faithful demand that science measure the unmeasurable so as to disprove the unmeasurable's existence. Otherwise, the unmeasurable exists, because it cannot be measured.

The scientist demands that the faithful provide measurable evidence of the unmeasurable so as to prove the unmeasurable's existence. Otherwise, the unmeasurable does not exist, because it cannot be measured.