Stu:
By your logic the same goes for methodological naturalism. It's not science therefore it's useless.
By your logic the same goes for methodological naturalism. It's not science therefore it's useless.
Intelligent Design is not creationism
- Thread starter Teleologist
- Start date
That's classic ignorant Z.
"As of the early 2000s, the neutral theory is widely used as a "null model" for so-called null hypothesis testing. Researchers typically apply such a test when they already have an estimate of the amount of time that has passed since two species or lineages diverged--for example, from radiocarbon dating at fossil excavation sites, or from historical records in the case of human families. The test compares the actual number of differences between two sequences and the number that the neutral theory predicts given the independently estimated divergence time. If the actual number of differences is much less than the prediction, the null hypothesis has failed, and researchers may reasonably assume that selection has acted on the sequences in question. Thus such tests contribute to the ongoing investigation into the extent to which molecular evolution is neutral."
Nothing whatsoever in that test rules out design. Nothing. There simply is no test that rules out design that the anti ID folks have ever shown, so it is illogical to teach non design, especially when doing so with such great dogmatism. It is simply indoctrination into a world view, which is essentially existentialism.
However, that is exactly what is being taught in the public schools, i.e. non design...ignorant chance...purposeless mindless ignorant chance processes.
Teaching on the basis of incompleteness and arguments from ignorance is dark ages stuff...
However, that is exactly what is being taught in the public schools, i.e. non design...ignorant chance...purposeless mindless ignorant chance processes.
Teaching on the basis of incompleteness and arguments from ignorance is dark ages stuff...
Question from Teleologist:
James Bond replied:
Does that mean you are okay with ID being discussed in the science classroom so long as it's not being substituted for a branch of science?
James Bond replied:
Does that mean you are okay with ID being discussed in the science classroom so long as it's not being substituted for a branch of science?
The only purpose of ID is as an althernative theory for evolution.
I don't have a problem with the following:
"(Knowledge of astronomy). By the way, there is SETI and it's not science."
Neither would I have a problem with this:
"(Knowledge of evolution). By the way, people have proposed an alternative theory called ID, but there is no scientific basis for it."
"The only purpose of ID is as an althernative theory for evolution."
That's your opinion, but unless you know ID is false, then there are other reasons to make ID available to students....like giving them choices, teaching them how to think, and allowing them to reach their own conclusions...
Your above statement is as logical as saying:
The only purpose of evolutionary theory is to have an alternative to design theory.
So, do you really want to admit that your "evolutionary science" is not science but rather just a reaction to a design based perspective?
That's your opinion, but unless you know ID is false, then there are other reasons to make ID available to students....like giving them choices, teaching them how to think, and allowing them to reach their own conclusions...
Your above statement is as logical as saying:
The only purpose of evolutionary theory is to have an alternative to design theory.
So, do you really want to admit that your "evolutionary science" is not science but rather just a reaction to a design based perspective?
The more you speak, the more you expose your ignorance. Do you not realize how laughable your logic is?
Here is a hint:
The only purpose of alternative medicine is to have an alternative to conventional medicine.
True.
The only purpose of conventional medicine is to have an alternative to alternative medicine.
neophyte321
Guest
How about this: Teach budding scientists to approach their experimentation with the idea that everything is the result of an intelligent source, because everything sure the hell appears to work as if everything has a distinct purpose.
the notion that kids should be shielded from "ID" on the basis it is not "scientific" is too stupid to comment on.
HISTORY has nothing to do with science.
the notion that kids should be shielded from "ID" on the basis it is not "scientific" is too stupid to comment on.
HISTORY has nothing to do with science.
What is considered "alternative medicine technology" in many cases existed long before modern medicine. Accupuncture, faith healing, herbal remedies, AyurVedic treatments, etc. all predate modern medicine.
So which is really the alternative?
Early empiricism concluded design, not ignorant chance.
So which is really the alternative theory?
Just because something follows, which becomes more popular, doesn't mean that it was not actually the alternative theory to begin with.
Darwin's theory was the alternative theory, not the primary more popular pre-existing theory.
Logically, popularity does not dictate what was the initial theory...nor does popularity determine whether or not a theory is actually true or false.
You continue to crack me up...
Oh, why do we have alternative medicine anyway? Because modern medicine doesn't always work...
Would this be akin to saying that evolutionary theory doesn't always work and that is why we have a revival of design theory? You would not prohibit someone who needs help from seeking alternative medicine would you? You wouldn't prevent a doctor from learning about it would you? Yet you would prohibit ID theory to students in public schools?
LOL!
Another strawman argument bites the dust...
So which is really the alternative?
Early empiricism concluded design, not ignorant chance.
So which is really the alternative theory?
Just because something follows, which becomes more popular, doesn't mean that it was not actually the alternative theory to begin with.
Darwin's theory was the alternative theory, not the primary more popular pre-existing theory.
Logically, popularity does not dictate what was the initial theory...nor does popularity determine whether or not a theory is actually true or false.
You continue to crack me up...
Oh, why do we have alternative medicine anyway? Because modern medicine doesn't always work...
Would this be akin to saying that evolutionary theory doesn't always work and that is why we have a revival of design theory? You would not prohibit someone who needs help from seeking alternative medicine would you? You wouldn't prevent a doctor from learning about it would you? Yet you would prohibit ID theory to students in public schools?
LOL!
Another strawman argument bites the dust...
Quote from james_bond_3rd:
The more you speak, the more you expose your ignorance. Do you not realize how laughable your logic is?
Here is a hint:
The only purpose of alternative medicine is to have an alternative to conventional medicine.
True.
The only purpose of conventional medicine is to have an alternative to alternative medicine.
Would you agree then, that ID to evolution, is the same as alternative medicine to conventional medicine?