97
   

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

 
 
wandeljw
 
  1  
Wed 1 Nov, 2006 02:43 pm
UK UPDATE

Quote:
Widespread creationism teaching would worry UK's Blair
(Reuters, November 1, 2006)

British Prime Minister Tony Blair said in an interview published on Wednesday he would be worried if creationism entered mainstream teaching in British schools.

Creationism -- the view that God created the world in six days as described in the Bible -- has long been at the center of controversy in the United States, where conservative Christians reject Charles Darwin's theory of evolution.

A row broke out in Britain earlier this year after a private foundation that funds several schools in northern England was accused of teaching creationism in science classes.

The foundation said it taught evolution but said creation beliefs could be mentioned in some scientific discussions.

In an interview with New Scientist magazine, Blair said talk of some British schools teaching creationism was sometimes hugely exaggerated.
"I've visited one of the schools in question and as far as I'm aware they are teaching the curriculum in a normal way," he said.

"If I notice creationism becoming the mainstream of the education system in this country then that's the time to start worrying," he said.

Blair, who is due to give a lecture on the future of British science on Friday, said science was almost as important as economic stability to the future of the British economy.

"If we do not take the opportunities that are there for us in science then we are not going to have a successful modern economy," he said. "We will be out-competed on labor costs."

"We've got to give the country a great deal more confidence about science and its place in the future," he said.

Blair, who confessed he was very poor at science at school, advised scientists to "fight the battles you need to fight."
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Wed 1 Nov, 2006 03:19 pm
It doesn't say a great deal wande.

I think most of us can agree with the general drift. It's nice British spin. It would be a mistake to think it moves anywhere.

Take this-

Quote:
"If I notice creationism becoming the mainstream of the education system in this country then that's the time to start worrying," he said.


That is more or less meaningless and the "if" suggests he hasn't noticed yet. And who is to "start worrying" if he does notice. He'll be out of it shortly anyway.

It had comforts and vague promises for both sides. That's our way.

It means-"not to worry with Tone at the helm."

It depends a lot on how " becoming the mainstream" is interpreted.

It's telling us to take it easy and not get in the middin the Yanks are in by forcing any issues. That we'll all get to gnaw on the bone. "Sheesh- why don't you work harder and make the bone bigger instead of arguing about where this lot came from, what's next? ", he might mutter in an inaudible aside.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Wed 1 Nov, 2006 05:01 pm
wandeljw wrote:
UK UPDATE

Quote:
Widespread creationism teaching would worry UK's Blair
(Reuters, November 1, 2006)

"If I notice creationism becoming the mainstream of the education system in this country then that's the time to start worrying," he said.


Actually it'll be a bit late by then.
0 Replies
 
wandeljw
 
  1  
Wed 1 Nov, 2006 05:08 pm
That's true, rosborne. Blair admits to having been poor at science. Also, soon, Blair will no longer be prime minister.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Wed 1 Nov, 2006 05:13 pm
wandeljw wrote:
That's true, rosborne. Blair admits to having been poor at science. Also, soon, Blair will no longer be prime minister.


Agreed. Hopefully he doesn't try to educate his replacement in the proper timing for dealing with problems.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Wed 1 Nov, 2006 05:16 pm
rosborne, That was worth a good belly laugh!
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Wed 1 Nov, 2006 06:10 pm
What's the matter boys?

Don't you like have the piss taken out of you?

There's nothing easier to take the piss out of than blokes who didn't get elected thinking they know better than blokes who did.

The very idea is hilarious.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Wed 1 Nov, 2006 06:25 pm
Only when you're inebriated, spendi. Hilarious, that is.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Wed 1 Nov, 2006 06:43 pm
Oh no c.i.

I can laugh long and out loud at just the thought of it.
0 Replies
 
wandeljw
 
  1  
Thu 2 Nov, 2006 09:33 am
GERMANY UPDATE

Quote:
German Scientists Concerned About Rise in Creationist Belief
(Deutsche Welle, November 2, 2006)

The vice-president of the Association of German Biologists said he was concerned that the numbers of so-called creationists -- people who deny evolutionary theory in favor of a biblical one -- are on the rise in Germany.

Ulrich Kutschera, who also teaches evolutionary biology at the University of Kassel, expressed his concerns on the heels of comments by Hesse's education minister Karin Wolff.

In October, Wolff said she believed biblical creation theory should be taught in biology class as a theory, like the theory of evolution.

"I think it makes sense to bring up multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary problems for discussion," she said, adding that this would solve the problem of students being confronted with completely different points of view in religion and biology classes.

Wolff made her comments after the television channel Arte showed a documentary on two Hesse schools in the town of Giessen that were teaching creationism in biology class. Wolff, previously a school teacher who taught Lutheran religion, and also active in the Lutheran church, looked into the case.

Her disputed comment was made in the aftermath of the investigation, which uncovered no wrongdoing. At the time, a spokesman for the minister said, "Ms. Wolff is quite distanced from the creationists." But he added that she saw no contradiction between creationism and evolutionary theory.

Others, however, beg to differ.

"Ms. Wolff should catch up on things and read a science book," Kutschera told dpa news service on Monday. He faulted the minister for using "the language of the creationists, and (for) falling into their traps."

To speak of creation theory is a mistake, he said.

"Their choice of words is merely sleight of hand on the part of creationists," Kutschera said. "On the one hand there are creationist myths, and on the other hand, there is evolutionary biology."

Evolution is "a fact that has been explained with a modern theory," he said. "Otherwise all the thousands of scientists who, like us, pursue evolution research -- including those at Stanford and Harvard -- would be lunatics."
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Thu 2 Nov, 2006 10:16 am
wande quoted-

Quote:
"I think it makes sense to bring up multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary problems for discussion," she said, adding that this would solve the problem of students being confronted with completely different points of view in religion and biology classes.


That's a point I made numerous times during the Dover business. It is a problem and the lady who agrees with me has been elected (I presume) and Herr Kutschera has not. In fact the idea that contradictory points of view on an important subject being taught in the one school is patently ridiculous.

It seems to me that the anti-IDers have polarised the positions. They were the boat rockers in Dover going against elected people.

Herr Kutschera also seems to exhibit the anti-IDer's penchant for assertions which are easy to make when you are not running things.

Quote:
Evolution is "a fact that has been explained with a modern theory," he said. "Otherwise all the thousands of scientists who, like us, pursue evolution research -- including those at Stanford and Harvard -- would be lunatics."


Such as that. Why can't the "thousands of scientists" get on with their work whatever their views are on anything and leave the millions of citizens to go along with the people they elected and empowered to direct their affairs. His statement is simply false.

Anti-ID is profoundly anti-democractic as one might expect because evolution is also. They seek the hegemony of "brains". They express themselves as if it is their birthright and self-evident. Their whole demenour is shaped by that.

And the science of the wisdom of large groups contradicts them and they also have a circular argument to justify their idea of "brains" which they themselves police.

But the fear of their anti-democratic tendencies and the thought of tying in their demenour to power is constantly going to frustrate them.

History shows that the wisdom of large groups has kept them at arm's length and if I might, for once, be allowed an opinion I would think rightly so.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Thu 2 Nov, 2006 10:27 am
spendi, FYI "whole groups" can be wrong. It works both ways, but science is based on investigation and repeated conclusions. ID only has one answer without the proof of any "creator." ID losses on it's foundation.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Thu 2 Nov, 2006 11:01 am
Intelligent design as an intellectual concept is not dependent on "proof" of a Creator. It recognises that there is no possibility of any "proof" being forthcoming ever.

It allows for the "possibility" of a Divine origin and thus encourages imaginations to explore interpretations which may or may not be advantageous. One might say it is mystical. The stimulation of imagination being the active ingredient which was inhibited in Pagan times because the Deities were not only legion but had human attributes.

Creationism and scientific "proofs" are devoid of mysticism being rooted as they are in rigidity and earthly objects.

Those who can't, or won't" separate ID from Creationism are simply fighting in another battle.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Thu 2 Nov, 2006 11:10 am
Quote:
Those who can't, or won't" separate ID from Creationism are simply fighting in another battle.
. Those who wish to distance ID from creationism are merely "God's used car salesmen".

"That aint a hole in the floor, thats a sub assembly ventilation port"
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Thu 2 Nov, 2006 11:12 am
Imagination to explore ID belongs in comic books and the bible. It's not science, period.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Thu 2 Nov, 2006 11:46 am
And this isn't even a debate judging from the previous two posts.

Rigidity and lack of imagination being prominent in both of them.

There is a need for the two posters to discredit the notion that the stimulation of the imagination took off with the idea of the unknowable deity which ever recedes from the search for it and motivates that yearning by way of man's very nature. And that this extreme stimulation is unique to Faustian Christianity and its Arts and Sciences.

Bland assertions and weak sarcasms are not components of a mature debate.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Thu 2 Nov, 2006 11:48 am
spendi, Creation of good comic books takes more imagination than you can muster. That's a given.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Thu 2 Nov, 2006 11:48 am
"Mature debate?" ROFLMAO
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Thu 2 Nov, 2006 12:00 pm
Perhaps, spendi, its merely a matter of perception - you see the proposition you forward as being valid, pertinent, relevant, and significant.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Thu 2 Nov, 2006 12:04 pm
c.i. - (n+2) simple assertions not out.

Can you not see that by using assertions you empower others to do the same unless you assert that only your assertions have validity.

The very cause of modern fundamentalism.

Can you really not understand that c.i ?

Really? At your age?

Can you not deal adequately with the point about imagination and it's very poor showing in non-Christian cultures.

You daren't because you know it undermines your position and yet the facts are there for all to see.

Can you not see that-

Quote:
spendi, Creation of good comic books takes more imagination than you can muster. That's a given.


means nothing outside your box. It must be a life of gazing at sunsets in expensive locations.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.11 seconds on 10/04/2024 at 09:25:55