You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Intelligent Design struck down in Federal Court
- Thread starter ZZZzzzzzzz
- Start date
Exactly, because it is the simplest explanation, and the most natural and most reasonable one......
The question then follows, what is this source of all this order and apparent design and programming...but that is a different question question entirely...
The question then follows, what is this source of all this order and apparent design and programming...but that is a different question question entirely...
Quote from Ricter:
I've been telling you, the kids have already done that, over centuries.
Windows is proof there is no need for a programmer to be behind the program-not an intelligent one at least.
Random chance isnt what is being discussed in evolutionary terms, not when chemical co-valence, electron physics and the like have been shown to change their behaviour over time, or according to circumstance.
In other words, non-living molecular matter does show similiar traits to the organic living, evolutionary "being", regardless of its awareness, and it does "live" and "die" within various incarnations of compounds, substances and the like.
Back to ID, a front for the idea that man is made in gods image, ignores that dirt has its own ,intelligent chemistry, that life IS nothing more than rearrangements of DIRT, and that if its correct man was made from clay, it explains why people are as dumb as dirt.
Great.
Random chance isnt what is being discussed in evolutionary terms, not when chemical co-valence, electron physics and the like have been shown to change their behaviour over time, or according to circumstance.
In other words, non-living molecular matter does show similiar traits to the organic living, evolutionary "being", regardless of its awareness, and it does "live" and "die" within various incarnations of compounds, substances and the like.
Back to ID, a front for the idea that man is made in gods image, ignores that dirt has its own ,intelligent chemistry, that life IS nothing more than rearrangements of DIRT, and that if its correct man was made from clay, it explains why people are as dumb as dirt.
Great.
Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:
Exactly, because it is the simplest explanation, and the most natural and most reasonable one......
The question then follows, what is this source of all this order and apparent design and programming...but that is a different question question entirely...
The source, according to some, and this is just a tiny sample, is magic dragons, planetary alignments, some guy with telekinesis, my angry neighbor, people with odd shaped skulls, the angels dancing on a pinhead, the kid with his car stereo cranked, witches, etc.
Yeah, you really are simplifying it with the "intelligent" agent explanation.
Anyway, if you want to talk about First Cause, which is what I predicted we'd talk about at the beginning of the other thread on this exact same topic, go ahead. No on knows. Good scientists simply say "we don't know". You only pick on the atheists. Straw men.
Good scientists do say "we don't know."
Unfortunately, what we hear, what students hear is what scientists "believe." People walk away thinking that Darwinism is some fact of life, not just the belief system of a scientist who believes it to be true. Darwinism is not taught with skepticism by most teachers, it is taught from the acceptance perspective. Students can easily pick up on a teacher's point of view, and until they have reached the age of questioning authority, they suck it down like mamma's milk.
If we have to be subjected to the personal beliefs of some scientist's, then we should hear all scientist's beliefs, which include ID.
This is why I would always prefer only facts of biological processes, and observations should be taught....but that is not the case. Scientists proselytize their theories onto school children, rather than being the good little agnostics they are supposed to be.
Unfortunately, what we hear, what students hear is what scientists "believe." People walk away thinking that Darwinism is some fact of life, not just the belief system of a scientist who believes it to be true. Darwinism is not taught with skepticism by most teachers, it is taught from the acceptance perspective. Students can easily pick up on a teacher's point of view, and until they have reached the age of questioning authority, they suck it down like mamma's milk.
If we have to be subjected to the personal beliefs of some scientist's, then we should hear all scientist's beliefs, which include ID.
This is why I would always prefer only facts of biological processes, and observations should be taught....but that is not the case. Scientists proselytize their theories onto school children, rather than being the good little agnostics they are supposed to be.
Quote from Ricter:
The source, according to some, and this is just a tiny sample, is magic dragons, planetary alignments, some guy with telekinesis, my angry neighbor, people with odd shaped skulls, the angels dancing on a pinhead, the kid with his car stereo cranked, witches, etc.
Yeah, you really are simplifying it with the "intelligent" agent explanation.
Anyway, if you want to talk about First Cause, which is what I predicted we'd talk about at the beginning of the other thread on this exact same topic, go ahead. No on knows. Good scientists simply say "we don't know". You only pick on the atheists. Straw men.
Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:
Good scientists do say "we don't know."
Unfortunately, what we hear, what students hear is what scientists "believe." People walk away thinking that Darwinism is some fact of life, not just a scientist who may believe it to be true.
If we have to believe some scientist's beliefs, then we should hear all scientist's beliefs, which include ID.
This is why I would always prefer only facts of biological processes, and observations should be taught....but that is not the case. Scientists proselytize their theories onto school children, rather than being the good little agnostics they are supposed to be.
What you're suggesting is that we take centuries of observations, ignore the single, utilitarian explanation implied by those, confirmable by everyone, and instead open our minds to the tens of thousands of other proposed explanations for those phenomena, for the basic reason, and let's go ahead and admit this, that the intelligent designer explanation satisfies an emotional need for a cosmic parent in us.
Ok why not? Why not the alignment of the planets giving rise to us, and the way we experience reality? Too farfetched?
Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:
Good scientists do say "we don't know."
Unfortunately, what we hear, what students hear is what scientists "believe." People walk away thinking that Darwinism is some fact of life, not just the belief system of a scientist who believes it to be true. Darwinism is not taught with skepticism by most teachers, it is taught from the acceptance perspective. Students can easily pick up on a teacher's point of view, and until they have reached the age of questioning authority, they suck it down like mamma's milk.
If we have to be subjected to the personal beliefs of some scientist's, then we should hear all scientist's beliefs, which include ID.
This is why I would always prefer only facts of biological processes, and observations should be taught....but that is not the case. Scientists proselytize their theories onto school children, rather than being the good little agnostics they are supposed to be.
And that is false. Scientists do admit that they don't know what the source of the "Big Bang" is. If I wanted to find people who do know, I'd ask the Bible thumpers.
Most theists I know say the "believe" and they practice faith.
If they knew they would not admit they continue to practice faith, they would no longer need that practice.
Faith implies not knowing.....but choosing to believe where something is not known.
Scientists do admit they don't know.....when properly pressed on the issue, but they generally they do not offer that up when they are teaching students in the public school system. If they truly did not know, and were not involved in their Darwinist or atheistic belief systems, they wouldn't be so resistant to offering alternative theories.
They teach theory as if it were fact, not taking the time to explain the flaws and the alternate theories of design.
That is the issue, of course, the lack of alternative theories in the teaching of origin of life.....
If they knew they would not admit they continue to practice faith, they would no longer need that practice.
Faith implies not knowing.....but choosing to believe where something is not known.
Scientists do admit they don't know.....when properly pressed on the issue, but they generally they do not offer that up when they are teaching students in the public school system. If they truly did not know, and were not involved in their Darwinist or atheistic belief systems, they wouldn't be so resistant to offering alternative theories.
They teach theory as if it were fact, not taking the time to explain the flaws and the alternate theories of design.
That is the issue, of course, the lack of alternative theories in the teaching of origin of life.....
Quote from Ricter:
And that is false. Scientists do admit that they don't know what the source of the "Big Bang" is. If I wanted to find people who do know, I'd ask the Bible thumpers.
Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:
Most theists I know say the "believe" and they practice faith.
If they knew they would not admit they continue to practice faith, they would no longer need that practice.
Faith implies not knowing.....but choosing to believe where something is not known.
Scientists do admit they don't know.....when properly pressed on the issue, but they generally they do not offer that up when they are teaching students in the public school system. If they truly did not know, and were not involved in their Darwinist or atheistic belief systems, they wouldn't be so resistant to offering alternative theories.
They teach theory as if it were fact, not taking the time to explain the flaws and the alternate theories of design.
That is the issue, of course, the lack of alternative theories in the teaching of origin of life.....
Scientific theory IS fact, as fact has been defined by the normal, utilitarian masses of humans over centuries of time. Those humans were once sweet, innocent, unindoctrinated children I should mention. Anyway, it includes elements of consistency, observability, repeatablity, simplicity, and completeness. This was done for, again, practical reasons. Sorry, but we are corporeal beings with rather prosaic needs. I wish we could indulge in any old flight of fancy and go on living, like I wish I could eat only chocolate and not get soft.
The "dragon in my garage" theory (shudder, I hate to denigrate and misuse the word this way), fails on most of those counts.
Or do you prefer Raven popping open the clamshell "theory"?
It was a "scientific fact" for early scientists that the sun revolved around the earth.
Was it really a FACT that the sun revolved around the earth?
Most scientists I know are not so loose with the concept of fact as you appear to be.
Biological processes that are observed are indeed a fact.
Darwinism and related theories as to the cause of these facts are not....
Darwinism as taught in schools is indoctrination.
Was it really a FACT that the sun revolved around the earth?
Most scientists I know are not so loose with the concept of fact as you appear to be.
Biological processes that are observed are indeed a fact.
Darwinism and related theories as to the cause of these facts are not....
Darwinism as taught in schools is indoctrination.
Quote from Ricter:
Scientific theory IS fact, as fact has been defined by the normal, utilitarian masses of humans over centuries of time. Those humans were once sweet, innocent, unindoctrinated children I should mention. Anyway, it includes elements of consistency, observability, repeatablity, simplicity, and completeness. This was done for, again, practical reasons. Sorry, but we are corporeal beings with rather prosaic needs. I wish we could indulge in any old flight of fancy and go on living, like I wish I could eat only chocolate and not get soft.
The "dragon in my garage" theory (shudder, I hate to denigrate and misuse the word this way), fails on most of those counts.
Or do you prefer Raven popping open the clamshell "theory"?