Intelligent Design struck down in Federal Court

Is there a need to project that science knows our orgin and purpose, when if fact it does not?





Quote from vhehn:

in science you can never know for 100% sure. you can only observe and test. lets take ideas of origin. on one side we have an idea based on an old book written by primitive men who thought thunder and lightening were god speaking.
on the other side we have over 100 years of scientific observations and testing by the best means we have available. which do you think is more accurate?
More...
 
Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

Facts please.

You do understand the concept of accuracy, right?

Say you were going to take a trip to the the moon.

Could you be right 99% in your course planning and still get there?

No, as the smallest margin of error becomes more significant over longer distances.

So to when it comes to our origin, (by all accounts a very far distance from where we are today) teaching anything as a truth without 100% knowledge is not science, nor is it scientific. If it is taught as "what is accepted today by scientists" that means nothing, as history has shown the fashion of scientists and their beliefs are subject to change as knowledge deepens. I can't stand the fundamentalism of the scientists any more than their counterpart in the theist side of the argument.

Rather than teach speculative conclusions, teach fact, and keep the wonder in children alive. Yes, high school kids are kids, not adults.

Let them be absolutely free of bias to decide for themselves what is our origin, our purpose, and the nature of our being.

The reaction by the extreme right wing Christians is a normal and expected response to putting science and scientists where they don't belong, i.e. Shamans and modern day witch doctors.

Teach facts of biology, and keep the speculative unprovable theories out of science class for students in high school and below.

I am firm, and have been consistently firm on this position. I say we teach only fact of biological process in high schools, none of the speculative crap either way.
More...

Dammit, I actually agree with this......
 
The teaching of evolution is all fact based.

Hypothesis and theory are central to science.

When they teach evolution in school, it is called the theory of evolution. It is presented with factual data. Go read a high school biology textbook.

Intelligent design is nothing more than a derivation of a rejection of Evolution, without a compelling collection of facts to support it.

Dat's da fact, Jack!

If you think otherwise, ZZZzzzz (excuse me if I mispelled your name) present a factual based case for ID. No links please.
 
It is not necessary to teach theory of evolution to understand biological processes.

Simply because a theory is the most popular, or because nothing better is around, that is a reason to teach it?

If scientists suddenly reversed and embraces ID, should we then teach it?

Nope.

Teach facts of biological processes to children, not theory that they don't know how to evaluate, because their minds are not developed enough to be critical in the thinking aspect to reject or evaluate it properly.

It is, simply put, a form of atheistic indoctrination as it is currently pushed on kids.

I reject this indoctrination process as much as I reject teaching a religious doctrine in the public school system.

Quote from dgabriel:

The teaching of evolution is all fact based.

Hypothesis and theory are central to science.

When they teach evolution in school, it is called the theory of evolution. It is presented with factual data. Go read a high school biology textbook.

Intelligent design is nothing more than a derivation of a rejection of Evolution, without a compelling collection of facts to support it.

Dat's da fact, Jack!

If you think otherwise, ZZZzzzz (excuse me if I mispelled your name) present a factual based case for ID. No links please.
More...
 
Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

Sure, why not?

Although if you had written it, I am sure I could find something wrong with it...

:D

Merry Christmas!
More...

wow, a rare admission of fallibility.
you must have touched her heart, jem.
however did you find it?
oh that's right you kissed her ass
 
Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

It is not necessary to teach theory of evolution to understand biological processes.

Simply because a theory is the most popular, or because nothing better is around, that is a reason to teach it?

If scientists suddenly reversed and embraces ID, should we then teach it?

Nope.

Teach facts of biological processes to children, not theory that they don't know how to evaluate, because their minds are not developed enough to be critical in the thinking aspect to reject or evaluate it properly.

It is, simply put, a form of atheistic indoctrination as it is currently pushed on kids.

I reject this indoctrination process as much as I reject teaching a religious doctrine in the public school system.
More...

If Science uncovers compelling evidence for a creator, then by all means teach it.

If evolution is atheistic, so is physics, chemistry, music, soccer, and orgasms (when she said, "God that was good", she was speaking to me, not Him)
 
Quote from dgabriel:

If Science uncovers compelling evidence for a creator, then by all means teach it.

If evolution is atheistic, so is physics, chemistry, music, soccer, and orgasms (when she said, "God that was good", she was speaking to me, not Him)
More...

science is one of few bastion of rationality;
i want god to keep his hands off
 
I don't agree, as physicists for all of their "big bang" proponents will be the first to admit they don't know what would have necessarily caused a big bang, nor do they much care, as they are still in wonder and awe of the universe, its complexity, its diversity, its order, etc. It is just one in a long line of theories, I don't see the emotional attachment to it the way the evolutionists defend ignorant lifeless chance.

They are just playing with guesses, and their "revelations" have nothing to say on the origin of man, or God, or the Soul, etc.. Theirs is not a Godless universe necessarily, as they only look to the physical universe, not the nature of living organisms or the reality of human consciousness and human existence.

The biological evolutionists seem overwhelmingly convinced that our existence is by random ignorant lifeless chance, not by any possible intelligent design.

To reach such a conclusion on the basis of a lack of evidence rather than demonstrable proof of a real measurable, predictable, and quantifiable force of evolution seems as unscientific as early scientists claiming disease was caused by evil spirits, because they had no way to measure the cause of disease.

Physicists can predict quite accurately what will happen physically when the four major forces interact with matter in time and space, biologists are unable to say when, or where, or why such proposed evolution in a species will or won't happen. Physicists deal with real forces, mathematically predictable, measurable, quantifiable, etc.

Biological evolutionist just see what has happened or may happen, can't see a pattern, can't imagine there is one, and say it is random ignorant unplanned chance. Truly the height of ignorance to honestly observe, truly not know a cause and effect, yet claim to believe in some magical "evolutionary force" that is the cause of our existence.

The rest of your comments...well, they are not really deserving of a response, are they?





Quote from dgabriel:

If Science uncovers compelling evidence for a creator, then by all means teach it.

If evolution is atheistic, so is physics, chemistry, music, soccer, and orgasms (when she said, "God that was good", she was speaking to me, not Him)
More...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top