Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

ID still requires a belief in god, my 2 cents.
So its religious teachings.
Church schools anyone?

No matter how ID is spun, it still requires a belief in god.

Teach religion in schools, why not, my 2 cents.
Teach religion in schools, why not.
Teach religion in schools, why not.

Kids need I nice closed ID fundamentalist mind for the coming war.
The war of good vs evil.

The war of the end times.
Arrrrr...
maaa...
geee...
dooon...

YADDA YADDA YADDA <--Sung in a deep brooding tone to the sound of
YADDA YADDA YADDA gunfire and bacon sizzling in a pan
YADDA YADDA YADDA
YADDA YADDA YADDA
such crap but could be true
who knows.

Who cares, my 2 cents.

How bout this? Its from my latest CD


Well, if we go to heaven
and some say we dont
but if there is a reckoning day
please god Ill se you
or maybe I wont
Ive a bag packed to go either way.

Science and Faith
(Dallas Morning News Editorial, December 27, 2007)

Did God create the universe? Did he do so according to the six-day schedule set out in the Book of Genesis?

On the first question, science must be agnostic; the scientific method of knowing cannot answer a question like that any more than theology can discover the specific gravity of mercury. On the second question, science is rather definitive: No. A literal reading of Genesis is scientifically unsupportable. If one wishes to believe the Genesis version over the scientific account, one may. But it's not science.

It's troubling, then, that the Dallas-based Institute for Creation Research, which professes Genesis as scientifically reliable, recently won a state advisory panel's approval for its online master's degree program in science education. Investigators found that despite its creationism component - which is not the same thing as "intelligent design" - the institute's graduate program offered enough real science to pass academic muster. The Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board will vote on the recommendation in January.

We hate to second-guess the three academic investigators - including Gloria White, managing director of the University of Texas at Austin's Dana Research Center for Mathematics and Science Education - but, still, the coordinating board had better give this case a long, hard look.

The board's job is to certify institutions as competent to teach science in Texas schools. Despite the institute including mainstream science in its programs, it's hard to see how a school that rejects so many fundamental principles of science can be trusted to produce teachers who faithfully teach the state's curriculum.

Some people regard science as a religion, finding comfort in what's provable and undeniable. For others, the only true source of religion is faith in God. Faith is based on the unprovable, and because it's a personal conviction, it is equally undeniable.

These two absolutes increasingly are at odds in Texas schools, where evolution is the basis for science instruction. The theory of evolution holds that humans resulted from billions of years of adaptation and refinement.

Many devout Christians and Jews are offended that, to study science, students must disregard the biblical account of God creating all existence in six days. Some demand the teaching of faith as a science, called "intelligent design," to counter the notion that evolution is the only answer.

Faith maintains its unique quality because it is based on things we cannot prove in this life. By reducing it to an empirical science, it ceases to be faith. Yet, no matter how many linkages scientists uncover to show that man evolved from pond slime, they will never do better than those who rely on faith in answering the ultimate question about a greater being behind our existence.

As the debate rages, it's worth noting that the world's great religions agree on the need for science. And even the agnostic Albert Einstein conceded that science can't answer everything: "My religiosity consists in a humble admiration of the infinitely superior spirit that reveals itself in the little that we, with our weak and transitory understanding, can comprehend of reality."

It's demeaning for the faithful to tout belief as science. But equally so, the advocates of science should be respectful enough to admit that faith is all that remains when science fails to provide the answers we seek.

Gloria White, managing director of the University of Texas at Austin's Dana Research Center for Mathematics and Science Education

Too easy. Inconsequential. Cop out really.

spendius wrote:

Too easy. Inconsequential. Cop out really.

The same could be said for religion.

I thought the bible implied some rather nasty threats for anyone who tried to prove god exists, or tempt god into revealing himself.

The essence of faith is that there should be no proof.

Where?

Says who?

rosborne979 wrote:

I thought the bible implied some rather nasty threats for anyone who tried to prove god exists, or tempt god into revealing himself.

Where?

rosborne979 wrote:

The essence of faith is that there should be no proof.

Says who?

from http://www.merriamwebster.com/dictionary/belief

Quote:

synonyms belief, faith, credence, credit mean assent to the truth of something offered for acceptance. belief may or may not imply certitude in the believer <my belief that I had caught all the errors>. faith almost always implies certitude even where there is no evidence or proof <an unshakable faith in God>. credence suggests intellectual assent without implying anything about grounds for assent <a theory now given credence by scientists>. credit may imply assent on grounds other than direct proof <gave full credit to the statement of a reputable witness>.

people pushing a religious agenda in preference to intellectual honesty.

real life wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:

I thought the bible implied some rather nasty threats for anyone who tried to prove god exists, or tempt god into revealing himself.

Where?

rosborne979 wrote:

The essence of faith is that there should be no proof.

Says who?

from http://www.merriamwebster.com/dictionary/belief

Quote:

RL, you cut your dictionary quote a little short....and I can see why.

Quote:

synonyms belief, faith, credence, credit mean assent to the truth of something offered for acceptance. belief may or may not imply certitude in the believer <my belief that I had caught all the errors>. faith almost always implies certitude even where there is no evidence or proof <an unshakable faith in God>. credence suggests intellectual assent without implying anything about grounds for assent <a theory now given credence by scientists>. credit may imply assent on grounds other than direct proof <gave full credit to the statement of a reputable witness>.

Besides, he said "FAITH" not "belief". Here is the right dictionary entry.

http://www.merriamwebster.com/dictionary/faith

Quote:

Faith-based science
(Houston Chronicle Editorial, December 28, 2007)

Visitors to the Institute for Creation Research Web page can quickly deduce that the organization, founded in California and recently transplanted to Dallas, is a Christian group dedicated to spreading the doctrine of divine creation of the world and challenging the teaching of evolution as fact in public schools.

An advisory committee to the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board recommends that the group be allowed to confer master's degrees in science education for teacher candidates. This indefensible action would be the equivalent of allowing an institute of faith-healers to issue advanced medical degrees. It would devalue the credentials of all science teachers and misrepresent to the public the capabilities of teachers with questionable diplomas.

The institute's statement of purpose leaves no doubt about its mission. According to its founders, it was formed "to equip believers with evidences of the Bible's accuracy and authority through scientific research, educational programs, and media presentations, all conducted within a thoroughly biblical framework."

A sampling of its graduate online course offerings confirms that instead of real science education, the institute is training followers to challenge science curricula and influence young minds with a blatantly religious message. Students and faculty at the institute must accept the biblical account that God created the world in six days a few thousand years ago and that fossils are the remnant of a global deluge as described in the saga of Noah.

Texas Commissioner of Higher Education Raymund Paredes expressed discomfort with the recommendation to sanction the institute's graduate degrees but wants a thorough review. He told the Houston Chronicle that "because this controversy is so potentially hot, we owe it to both sides to be absolutely fair in evaluating it."

His caution is admirable, but the creationist battle has already been fought in other states in which science has been the decisive victor. Paredes makes the sensible observation that a degree issued by the institute should be labeled creation studies rather than science education.

Unfortunately, those espousing the teaching of creationism, or a variant called intelligent design, as alternative theories to evolution have been gaining ground in recent years in Texas' educational bureaucracy. The chairman of the Texas Board of Education, dentist Don McLeroy, is a self-described creationist who supports the teaching of the strengths and weaknesses of evolution as a theory in science classes.

The state's director of science curriculum, Chris Castillo Comer, was forced to resign after circulating an e-mail announcing a talk by an author of a book criticizing intelligent design. The State Board of Education will consider new public school science curricula in the coming year. Some ideologues on the board are sure to pressure the state to include creationist doctrine in science classes.

Texas schools must have the best science and technology instruction possible to make the state competitive in a 21st century economy. A science class that teaches children that the Earth is 6,000 years old and that species did not evolve from species now extinct is not worthy of the name.

Churches and other private institutions are proper places for the discussion of religious beliefs. Public school science classes are not.

TEXAS UPDATE

Quote:

Faith-based science
(Houston Chronicle Editorial, December 28, 2007)

An advisory committee to the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board recommends that the group be allowed to confer master's degrees in science education for teacher candidates. This indefensible action would be the equivalent of allowing an institute of faith-healers to issue advanced medical degrees.