Intellagentdesign

quote:

---

That really gets to me, because no matter what scientific argument or evidence one could present, you could just say that the intelligent being was responsible for it. How perfect.

---

quote:

---

because it is founded on true ignorance

---

quote:

---

What benefits or progress would be yielded from teaching intelligent design?

---

"A fool says I know and a wise man says I wonder."

quote:

---

cover creationism or even Christianity

---

"A fool says I know and a wise man says I wonder."

As a parting word or two on this discussion...

quote:

---

My wife is a science teacher, she says evolution is a theory and intelligentdesign is a theory and any teacher should be able to teach these theories. Kids are not as dumb as we make them out to be, they only act that way sometimes. They can decide for themselves what to believe, they will anyways. They're not going to be brain washed or anything else - the world will still turn and tomorrow will still come.

---

"How am I not myself?"
[  Edited by Enigmatic at   ]

quote:

---

And what is the benifit of teaching we came from apes?

---

"He who does not question is lost."

Okcitykid: 'intelligent design' is not a theory its a postulate. What right does it have to be taught in biology classes? its not scientific, its theology. The pseudo-code algorithm for how a scientific idea develops is:

1. Consider a particular phenomenon.
2. Propose a postulate to explain that phenomena.
3. Present evidence to support the postulate.
4. Allow others the opportunity to present evidence to either support or contradict the postulate.
5. If after a reasonable amount of time and evidence the postulate still stands up strong, it may be promoted to the rank of theory.
6. If it is disproven, goto 1.
7. If, after a much longer time, the theory is very strong and essentially unchallenged, it may be promoted to the rank of law.

Most scientific ideas have followed this whole process. Based on these criteria, 'intelligent design' is not a scientific theory at all. The reason for this is that it completely sidesteps the all-important points (3) and (4). The argument for intelligent design in every account I have read is something along the lines of “the universe is incredibly complex, therefore it must have been created by a higher power”. Let’s be very clear about one thing. This is not a theory. It’s a postulate (and one which it not logically defensible at that). There is no science to ID. Its a cover up of creationism. A propaganda tool if you like. Almost an illusion if you will, to the idea that it encompasses the theologies of religion. It’s farcical to promote ID as a scientific theory.

Geez, while I don’t believe that ID should be taught in school at all, if it is it should at least go by the title of “unsubstantiated postulate that immaterial and supernatural phenomena are responsible for human life”, which would be far more scientifically accurate than “intelligent design” which gives the false impression that in some way the idea is in fact intelligent!

quote:

---

what is the benifit of teaching we came from apes

---

"The summit is just a halfway point"

Beautifully explained, summit.

"How am I not myself?"

I found this on a web site:
'The reason why vaccines have not succeeded in eliminating influenza, for example, is because the viruses change. Soldiers trained to attack only enemies in grey uniforms will be useless if the enemy changes into blue uniforms. Effective vaccines against particular strains of flu virus constantly need to be updated for this reason.

The same potential problem plagues the development of an effective vaccine against HIV. As the virus multiplies, the ‘copies’ which are made of it often have copying mistakes (mutations) which can change those parts of the virus that your body’s defences are geared to recognize. Only a very small change may be enough—a change which otherwise is completely irrelevant to the structure or function of the virus. So a ‘new strain’ emerges, and although you were able to fight off the first one, now you can’t.'

It is important to recognise that no new information is created. When Richard Dawkins (the famous and ardently atheistic evolutionist) was asked to asked to provide one single example of a genetic mutation or evolutionary process that increases the information in the genome. He had no answer to this at all.

The full link is:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/0412zimmer.asp

""What we do in life echoes in eternity" Maximus"

quote:

---

Evolution is the cornerstone of Biology. Evolution explains the development of life on earth, by the theory of common descent, and with paleontology we can even find out how life developed, and what the world used to look like. Shared traits, features, processes, distributions and behaviours of organisms can be understood.

---

""What we do in life echoes in eternity" Maximus"

My personal belief is that both evolution and ID are theories.

Theory is apart of science because in science we work to prove or disprove a theory.

While it might be easier to prove evoluition than ID, I think niether one of them should be taught in science, but a new class of study "theory of the origins of life".

While I do believe they can both be taught in science, because neither will ever go from theory to fact in my life time or my children's life time it is not worth the conflict.

All the arguments as to why ID should be or shouldn't be taught in science, I could say about evolution. Concerning creationism not being science I think is a narrow minded point of view.

Things that we can't understand we push them over to that Religion/Magic side of the house. But if we could understand it or it could be explained to us, then it would be science.

quote:

---

"My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble minds. That deeply emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God. " Albert Einstein.

"It is enough for me to contemplate the mystery of conscious life perpetuating itself through all eternity, to reflect upon the marvelous structure of the universe which we can dimly perceive and to try humbly to comprehend even an infinitesimal part of the intelligence manifested in Nature." Albert Einstein

---

"A fool says I know and a wise man says I wonder."

I still ask - why are we afraid of creationism that it should be banned from our schools?

"A fool says I know and a wise man says I wonder."

Check this link out.

http://www.apologeticscourses.com/Courses/Evol.htm

Read especially "The Evolution/Creation Models"

""What we do in life echoes in eternity" Maximus"

quote:

---

According to the principle of Creation, everything in the universe has a plan and purpose behind it. According to it, the origin and destiny of the world is in the firm control of a Creator.

---

"A fool says I know and a wise man says I wonder."

Okcitykid: What turns true belief into knowledge is the reliability of our cognitive processes. An opinion can't be reliable if its not accurate. So:
a. why do you think evolution shouldn't be taught in science (when evolution is science!)
b. why don't you care if ID is to be taught in science
c. why then do you go on to say that you think neither of them should be taught in science
d. why do you think ID is scientific. Because let's be very clear on this- ID is not a scientific theory, its a postulate.

Intelligent Design is not scientific. It should not be taught as a 'science'. There's two working ideas. One would be science is what scientists say it is. The second would be that science involves testable hypotheses. Intelligent design isn't testable in the way that we normally think about scientific hypothesis being testable (as I have previously stated the pseudo-code algorithm for how a scientific idea develops). They don't provide the details by which that design happened because they couldn't. They couldn't possibly show us the designer.
Intelligent Design has been rejected by all scientific institutions, academies and societies around the world. For the scientists, the case of 'intelligent design' is closed- it's simply not science.


Petesmith: Regarding genetic mutations and evolutionary processes- this is well understood now.

quote:

---

But does that improve the human condition or degrade it?

---

"The summit is just a halfway point"

I'm going to have to do some research - its late - But without insult, I will get back.

I did do a little bit of research and discovered its whereabouts:

Discovery Institute - a conservative Christian think tank.

Evolution has been around for a long - ID has also, it just wasn't called ID and was kicked out of school by evolution.

I'll get back with ya

"A fool says I know and a wise man says I wonder."

a. As if my vote would count - if I.D. can't be taught in science then neither should evolution, but if we agree to teach I.D. then I don't have a problem with evolution being taught in science. Evolution kicked ID out of science because I.D. tried to prevent Evolution from being taught - I think this is prejudice and narrow minded and we I would hope in the modern world would be more open minded.

b. I believe that teaching I.D. in science is pushing that gray line, but it can be taught in science and I wouldn't make a scene about it.

c. I believe if we took I.D. and evolution out of science and put them into a theory class, there would be less conflict, and we could go onto more important things.

d. ID is not science only if you believe there is no intelligence behind creation, but if you believe there is an intelligence, then clearly it is a science. A belief that everything has been created by chance I believe is less logical then believing that there is intelligence behind creation.

Scientists who dispute Darwinism
http://www.discovery.org/articleFiles/PDFs/100ScientistsAd.pdf

quote:

---

Intelligent Design is not scientific.

---

quote:

---

Intelligent design isn't testable in the way that we normally think about scientific hypothesis being testable (as I have previously stated the pseudo-code algorithm for how a scientific idea develops).

---

quote:

---

They don't provide the details by which that design happened because they couldn't. They couldn't possibly show us the designer.

---

"A fool says I know and a wise man says I wonder."