Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Spendius writes

Quote:

When will I ever learn? Never question the actions of a Lady.

I blush in the face of such wisdom.

(And do not fear offending me. One must be able to understand what you are saying in order to be offended. Smile

)

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
So if I or my granddaughter explore possibilities when there are no absolutes available, we are possessed of an empty mind incapable of critical thought? That's rather amazing actually. Perhaps you would care to define the gospel according to Chumly by which 'open minds' must think.
You unsurprisingly demonstrate your ignorance between the possible and the plausible.

So enlighten me oh paragon of critical and analytical thinking. You can start by answering my questions.

And then we will decide which of us has the more possible and/or plausible argument.

0 Replies

To honor your logical fallacy riddled presuming drivel with the definition of "questions" does the legitimate word a great diservice.

Show me your numerous examples of "analytical, comprehensive, and critical thinking" from your recent posts on this thread and how they meet "analytical, comprehensive, and critical thinking".

0 Replies

Asked and answered Sir Chumly.

Shorts in a wad a bit today are they?

0 Replies

Foxy

Quote:

I also don't care whether humans descended from apes but I can accept a possibility that each evolved as its own species and not one from the other.

This is the point you chose to overlook FM and thus, you pretty much made a red herring of your whole argument.

. No I didnt overlook it, but what the hell, what your granddaughter asked was(if ashe thought of it herself) a really good understanding of what evolution teaches us all along.

0 Replies

I think foxfyre, what you originally tried to pose as a question by your granddaughter, and the way it was interpreted by many of us leaves me with no choice than to agree with rosborne. If that was the point you were making (That your granddaughter is an intelligent girl--Id agree) However, because she asked a question that began with an "IF", followed by an incorrect premise, Id have to blame her teachers for missing the mark.

The fact that she discerned an illogical statement, the fallacy of which is
borne out by genetics and the fossil record, merely indicates that evolution isnt high on the list of subjects to be taught correctly at her school.

This entire thread is starting to sound like "Who's on First?"

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

I think foxfyre, what you originally tried to pose as a question by your granddaughter, and the way it was interpreted by many of us leaves me with no choice than to agree with rosborne. If that was the point you were making (That your granddaughter is an intelligent girl--Id agree) However, because she asked a question that began with an "IF", followed by an incorrect premise, Id have to blame her teachers for missing the mark.

The fact that she discerned an illogical statement, the fallacy of which is
borne out by genetics and the fossil record, merely indicates that evolution isnt high on the list of subjects to be taught correctly at her school.

This entire thread is starting to sound like "Who's on First?"

LOL, agreed on your last point.

The question was posed as a rhetorical question which, as I subsequently explained, was within the whole context of the argument presented by some that humankind descended from apes. She was offering a different way of looking at that by including an alternate theory. I thought that was pretty good for a kid.

I didn't expect to spend the rest of the day defending MY view of evolution and what descended from what or who is on first. Smile

It is no secret, however, that my personal opinion is that there is no conflict between the Theory of Evolution and Intelligent Design and, while I do not think it appropriate for I.D. to be taught in Science class, I have no problem with a science teacher acknowledging that as one of many theories of the origins of the universe.

0 Replies

foxfyre,
You have often demonstrated the opposite of "analytical, comprehensive, and critical thinking" in your recent posts on this thread:

Foxfyre wrote:

Really? When you teach do you not teach analytical, comprehensive, and critical thinking?

Why do you presuppose that simply because someone teaches that they would use "analytical, comprehensive, and critical thinking" or for that matter have the ability to?

Foxfyre wrote:

What manner of teacher does not?

Any manner of teacher that does not teach analytical, comprehensive, and critical thinking. Why you do presuppose that it would be otherwise?

Foxfyre wrote:

What rationale could one offer for not doing so?

Why do you presuppose there would be a rationale?

Foxfyre wrote:

What criteria is incorporated in critical thinking do you think?

The criteria by which a self-professed teacher of "analytical, comprehensive, and critical thinking" such as yourself would show that believing in an anthropomorphic providential god is congruent to "analytical, comprehensive, and critical thinking".

0 Replies

foxy

Quote:

It is no secret, however, that my personal opinion is that there is no conflict between the Theory of Evolution and Intelligent Design and, while I do not think it appropriate for I.D. to be taught in Science class, I have no problem with a science teacher acknowledging that as one of many theories of the origins of the universe.

Im aware, youve been consistent throughout. We agree to disagree . I dont get all torqued off about who believes what anymore. I think the advent of an ID worldview in Science class is no longer a threat., consequently I think that many of us are here just for the fun of it.

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

foxy
Quote:
It is no secret, however, that my personal opinion is that there is no conflict between the Theory of Evolution and Intelligent Design and, while I do not think it appropriate for I.D. to be taught in Science class, I have no problem with a science teacher acknowledging that as one of many theories of the origins of the universe.

Im aware, youve been consistent throughout. We agree to disagree . I dont get all torqued off about who believes what anymore. I think the advent of an ID worldview in Science class is no longer a threat., consequently I think that many of us are here just for the fun of it.

0 Replies

fm wrote-

Quote:

I think that many of us are here just for the fun of it.

That's true. That's exactly why I'm here. It's a long story and I won't bore you with it but if there was any better fun going anywhere else I would dump you lot faster than Einstein brushed the hot cigar ash off his bare chest when he was thinking about relativity on a hot day in a deck chair before the pubs opened.

I hope nobody thinks I know anything about the Godhead/s.

0 Replies

Chum has been quoting Foxy a lot hereabouts.

I'm wondering why he carefully avoiding this one-

Quote:

Shorts in a wad a bit today are they?

0 Replies

The better part of wisdom is the part unsaid Cool

0 Replies

foxy

Quote:

I would hate to think any of us are taking something unprovable one way or the other all that seriously

. I didnt say that. Science is much closer to having all the evidence it needs to make a case,ID/Creationism merely has "faith".

0 Replies

I question whether ID/Creationism if taken in its entirety has faith (at least of uniformity), given there is no accord among even the presumably faithful, on what precisely ID/Creationism is purported to be.

ID/Creationism cannot even define its terms. Having faith does not mean giving up rationality.

0 Replies

For Foxfyre, a summary of evolutionary theory and types of supporting evidence:

Quote:

Source: David Quammen, National Geographic Magazine

0 Replies

And there are degrees of ID, those that include evolution within "specified complexity dogma" (the Dembski apostles) and those that wont hear of it (the Phil Johnson crowd)

Youre right. The ID/Creationist crowd has got itself all schismed up that I dont think they could hold a decent convention in a single movie theater.

0 Replies

wandeljw,

Given that Foxfyre could just as easily Google any number of definitions herself, I might ask if you expect a change in her views and/of if you feel the posting would have an effect? Not that I mind a good read and we are all free to post as we see fit.

0 Replies

Foxfyre,

There is no conflict as long as you are able to keep issues of science separate from issues of faith. Science restricts itself to natural explanations of natural events and should be taught that way. Science should be taught as science. Religion should be taught as religion.

0 Replies

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know