Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Don't feed the troll, Joe . . . it just encourages him.

@Setanta,

True. Okay. No feeding. <sigh>

Did you know he's threatened not to talk to me anymore if I keep pointing out the similarities between his fundamentalist world view and the Taliban's?

I think it's fascinating that he either sees it and hates it or doesn't see the connection at all.

Joe(which would be worse)Nation

2 Replies

When you talk about seeing, the term "blind drunk" leaps into my mind . . . can't think why . . .

0 Replies

@Joe Nation,

Quote:

True. Okay. No feeding. <sigh>

The Guided One. And by a dickhead like Setanta. Mush!! Mush!! Pull his sled for him. He can't do it himself.

No wonder you sigh.

0 Replies

@Joe Nation,

Quote:

similarities between his fundamentalist world view and the Taliban's?

What similarities. Outline some points of contact aside from eating and sleeping and suchlike.

The Taliban doesn't do lingerie you know Joe. It is an extremely significant difference between my world view and their's, Poles apart.

So point out the similarities you have in mind will you? Just declaring that they exist is hardly scientific. One cannot peer review an assertion of that nature.

I have a beard though. Does that count? If it does then you are similar to the Pope, Cardinals, Archbishops and Bishops. And that's a significant difference too what with shaving being the hallmark of subservience.

1 Reply

@spendius,

Ah, you are intrigued?

Good.
Joe(I'll be back with a long list.)Nation

2 Replies

@Joe Nation,

A long list of bullshit I presume.

0 Replies

@Joe Nation,

I posted this on the other thread ( challenges to teaching evolution)

Quote:

What does the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture recommend for science education curriculum?

As a matter of public policy, Discovery Institute opposes any effort to require the teaching of intelligent design by school districts or state boards of education. Attempts to mandate teaching about intelligent design only politicize the theory and will hinder fair and open discussion of the merits of the theory among scholars and within the scientific community. Furthermore, most teachers at the present time do not know enough about intelligent design to teach about it accurately and objectively.

Instead of mandating intelligent design, Discovery Institute seeks to increase the coverage of evolution in textbooks. It believes that evolution should be fully and completely presented to students, and they should learn more about evolutionary theory, including its unresolved issues. In other words, evolution should be taught as a scientific theory that is open to critical scrutiny, not as a sacred dogma that can't be questioned.

Discovery Institute believes that a curriculum that aims to provide students with an understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of neo-Darwinian and chemical evolutionary theories (rather than teaching an alternative theory, such as intelligent design) represents a common ground approach that all reasonable citizens can agree on.

Seven states (Alabama, Minnesota, Missouri, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, South Carolina and Texas) have science standards that require learning about some of the scientific controversies relating to evolution.

2 Replies

@farmerman,

I enjoyed this one sentence from the article you posted,

Quote:

Furthermore, most teachers at the present time do not know enough about intelligent design to teach about it accurately and objectively.

Just like Romney's campaign for president, they don't provide any details.

This paragraph gets the cupie prize,

Quote:

Discovery Institute believes that a curriculum that aims to provide students with an understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of neo-Darwinian and chemical evolutionary theories (rather than teaching an alternative theory, such as intelligent design) represents a common ground approach that all reasonable citizens can agree on.

ROTFLMAO

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

And who are "reasonable citizens"? Whoever wrote that nonsense obviously believes in the efficacy of the flattery of the wannabee intellectuals.

He will be one I assume. They always are when they engage in that sort of shite.

2 Replies

@spendius,

Heretics are heretics whatever angle you view them from. Any fool can talk of "unresolved issues". Being scared of what they are is defining.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

sounds a bit like capitulation to me, unless its an entirely new stealth campaign. (Like theyre going to give up soon)

1 Reply

@farmerman,

I won't be giving up fm.

1 Reply

@spendius,

Gee, now youre picking one of your idiotic fights with those youve championed. (The IDers). Whatsit gonna be , you seem to have departed from your Driving narrative that has become familiar to those of us with educations above the third grade.

2 Replies

@spendius,

Quote:

I won't be giving up fm.

Thats why they call you "ten beers"

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Not only that, but spendi's idea of ID fits in with the group who sponsored that link. They both claimed that creationists/IDers just don't know how to present their ideas properly.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Spendi had been bragging that, if left to him, he would have won the Dover case for the IDers. Yet he shared no strategy with us as to how he would have proven that ID was really a science. He forgets that Dover SChools were the DEFENDENTS

2 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

Yet he shared no strategy with us as to how he would have proven that ID was really a science.

When he does finally show us his strategy I am willing to bet that it has sex in it somewhere.

1 Reply

@reasoning logic,

You seem to understand spendi's thesis "on everything." LOL

0 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

I posted this on the other thread ( challenges to teaching evolution)

Quote:
What does the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture recommend for science education curriculum?

In other words, evolution should be taught as a scientific theory that is open to critical scrutiny, not as a sacred dogma that can't be questioned.

It's interesting how they've tried to sneak onto the high ground when we all know they will eventually try to drag everyone off the cliff.

In answer to their statement above... all scientific theories are already open to critical scrutiny and none are treated as sacred dogma. To try to "accomplish" this is merely a way to "imply" that it's not already happening. They know better. They're just being tricky. I'm not buying it.

Also, students are not required to "believe" anything, they are merely required to "understand" it. And even though anyone is free to challenge anything, scientific facts are usually only challenged by qualified scientists who already understand the theories, not students who are still leaning the theories.

2 Replies

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know