Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Heres an answer that spendi may try to use

SPENDIMAN

0 Replies

Joe (I only deal in facts) Nation wrote-

Quote:

And any science teacher alluding to ID would face the following questions:

And any science teacher teaching evolution properly would face the following questions-

I've started menstruating Sir and I'm feeling a bit frisky and would like to try out the merits of my charms in the market place and in evolution animals start screwing as soon as they are ready and I've read that not doing causes unhealthy things like repressions and neuroticisms which some say cause diseases later on and I'm getting lots of propositions and why do I have to wait another four years to start my real career as a female. Having prepared herself, (she has ambitions such as de Laclos gave to his heroine in Dangerous Liasons) she has chapter and verse on marriage customs down the ages and in other cultures and has links to Freud's theories which are quite mild compared to some later ones all of which have scientific credentials. And there's 30 other kids listening intently to what Sir is going to say. And like TKO he will be reduced to banalities such as "it's not acceptable". So then she brings up evidence from horseracer bloodstock sales about first foals and the early retirement of high class fillies to the stud farm and some stuff about the dangers of late pregnancies and how she is biologically driven according to evolution theory to reproduce her genes and how there's a chance she might get killed or something if she waits as many have and thus goes directly against Sir's theory in the one area of it that is the most crucial

I hardly think this 14 year old would be interested in "How many designers". That's just your head in the sand straw man Joe. It's tweeting. Do you think threats of 100 lashes are better than a gentle form of hypnosis or do you think that well developed 14 year old girls wouldn't have the biological imperatives (commands)I have briefly sketched and that such a young lady wouldn't be a role model for all the other young ladies within her orbits only one of which is the school.

And when you have provided us with guidance on that you might show us how evolution theory justifies monogamy (leave out turtle doves please), and the condemnation of adultery and price gouging and theft.

The questions you have invented are there to cover up for your inabilty to face up to the real world and its scientific facts. And you so strong on facts too.

Like 7,462 pregnancies here in girls under 16 in 2005 and said to be rising. A 14 year old in Coronation St. And the Government spends £150 million a year in a propaganda blitz to prevent this and they would hardly need to do that if the forces to encourage it didn't exist.

In the 3 years from 2003 13,474 abortions were performed on girls under 16. The total number of pregnancies in girls under 18 in 2005 was 47,277.

What exactly are you evolution theory proponents after? Never mind apples and Noah and the rest of the snow.

0 Replies

FLORIDA UPDATE

Quote:

Don't monkey with science in our schools
(Mike Thomas, COMMENTARY, Orlando Sentinel, January 13, 2008)

Florida public schools continued their run toward respectability last week, ranked 14th in the nation by Education Week.

This follows results from national assessment tests that showed remarkable academic gains here compared with other states.

Where we once were ashamed of our schools, now we can even contemplate bragging about them.

The turnaround comes mainly from enforcing strict academic standards and accountability.

Once forced to focus on reading and math, schools now are being held accountable for teaching kids science. And it's for good reason.

Science is a hot commodity in the world and national economy.

It's why Florida is spending a fortune luring research centers like Burnham and Scripps. We need to produce employees these people will want to hire.

To that end, the Department of Education is proposing we upgrade our science curriculum. This includes recognizing evolution as the foundation of biology. The department's governing board will vote on a new standard next month.

The public input phase of this process has been painfully predictable. It has been like the Scopes Monkey Trial all over again at the hearings, with one woman proclaiming evolution as satanic. At least three rural school boards have opposed the new standard.

These are people who don't understand science, don't understand how scientists work and don't understand the use of the term "theory." They also don't see a problem trumping public education with their personal religious beliefs.

I emphasize the word personal because evolution is not a battle between Christians and secularists. I learned evolution in a Catholic school. The Episcopalians accept evolution. The Methodists and Presbyterians don't seem to have a problem with it.

And that's the problem with teaching "alternative theories" to evolution, a position taken by many school board members across Florida and even former Gov. Jeb Bush.

Whose alternative do we use?

I'd love to see Jeb or anyone else translate the concept of "alternative theories" into in a concrete standard that can be adopted uniformly by thousands of schools.

Does the biology teacher end each class with, "And it's all so amazing, a lot of people think you-know-who designed it!"

Do we include Genesis as an alternative theory? Do we go with figurative Genesis or the literal version, which has the earth forming before the sun? No problem. We can just swap their order of appearance since the formation of the solar system is based on a theory.

Let's not forget to throw in the theory of the 6,000-year-old Earth.

And on the eighth day, the ACLU was not pleased. And the lawsuits poured forth upon the courts.

I can tell you the outcome. Florida becomes a cable news freak show. The schools we've worked so hard to upgrade go back to joke status.

Luckily, the Department of Education staff is writing up its final version of the standards based only on scientifically valid input.

The Board of Education only needs the courage to approve it.

How do we lure the brilliant scientists we so desperately need with this marketing campaign: Put your 21st-century kids in our 19th-century schools? The danger of such a setback is real.

Here is what the superintendent of Taylor County schools said about evolution: "There's not a place on me where they took the tail off."

Maybe they didn't.

0 Replies

fm- your link didn't play here. Still it was a highly intellectual answer to my post I must say.

wande quoted-

Quote:

Put your 21st-century kids in our 19th-century schools?

19th century education produced the scientific revolution. I see anti-IDers as ending it.

TKO wrote-

Quote:

What's wrong with ID being a part of a mythology or theology course?

Direct question. Direct answer please.

Read the thread.

Hey you guys. Joe said nobody reads my posts.

0 Replies

wande quoted-

Quote:

And on the eighth day, the ACLU was not pleased. And the lawsuits poured forth upon the courts.

What's wrong with that? Lawyers, and those businesses where they spend their fees, will surely approve of that.

Let's make them interesting though instead of the Dover piano legs bloomers stuff. Media will like that. And its customers.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

real life wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
In one of those polls you linked, RL, is this:

CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll. Sept. 8-11, 2005. N=1,005 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.

"Which of the following statements comes closest to your views on the origin and development of human beings? Human beings have evolved over millions of years from other forms of life and God guided this process. Human beings have evolved over millions of years from other forms of life, but God had no part in this process. OR, God created human beings in their present form exactly the way the Bible describes it." Options rotated

Evolved,God Guided - 31%
Evolved, God Had No Part - 12%
Exactly As Bible Describes - 53%
Other (vol.) - 1%
Unsure - 3%

I would really like to see the demographics of the sample polled on this one. I do not believe a random sampling of Americans would produce a more than a small minority, much less a majority who believe human beings were created exactly as the Bible describes. I think easily 53% would agree that human kind evolved through a process including intelligent design and that the Biblical account is a theological, not scientific, explanation of that.

And despite Wandel's heroic efforts in posting source after source of efforts to teach Creationism as science suggesting a big problem, I cannot believe that more than a small number of fundamentalists would be pushing that. Any broad consensus to that end would be far more likely to be a backlash against a policy of teaching that there is no Intelligent Design.

I believe the very large number of Christians and Jews would not want Intelligent Design to be taught as science, but neither do they want science to pretend to be able to deny the reality of intelligent design. In other words, teach the kids science; even be honest about the theories of Intelligent Design and how science cannot explain all that away; but otherwise leave religion, either pro or con, out of it.

Actually as you can see, the various polls have the number at between 40%-60% on this same question.

Maybe this surprises you, but the consistent result is hard to brush off.

Maybe so, but fate has kept me in broad ecumenical circles for much of my adult life and that has included close contact with fundamentalists, charismatics, groups with polity, congregationalists, low church, high church, and everything in between. Among all these, those who take the Genesis 1 and 2 stories absolutely literally are extremely rare. The few who do even have elaborate explanations for how the two Genesis stories don't really contradict each other, but the huge majority do take the accounts as theological teachings and not intended to be consistent with science.

So again, I would really like to see the demographics of those polled. I'm not buying that the poll results show a genuine random sampling of Americans.

Again, you're not dealing with 'a' poll, but many.

If you want to think the entire polling industry is off it's rocker, well ok.

One needs no 'elaborate explanation' for Genesis 1 and 2.

One expressly puts forth a chronology. The other does not claim to be setting forth events chronologically.

0 Replies

from wandels post

Quote:

These are people who don't understand science, don't understand how scientists work and don't understand the use of the term "theory." They also don't see a problem trumping public education with their personal religious beliefs.

I emphasize the word personal because evolution is not a battle between Christians and secularists. I learned evolution in a Catholic school. The Episcopalians accept evolution. The Methodists and Presbyterians don't seem to have a problem with it.

...

Why worry about the bogus percentages RL, it really makes no matter . Whether a poll says that 95% of people dont belive in gravity doesnt make gravity leass a force. Said many times before, advancement in science isnt achieved by a poll.

0 Replies

c.i. wrote-

Quote:
Exactly how does one teach ID without religion? And what do they teach about ID? What is the curriculum?

spendi wrote:
You simply remove atheists from the classroom in the same way that you have removed them from the presidential candidate's list. It occurs by osmosis if you do that. There is no curriculum. And it's getting a bit sad my keeping having to repeat it. The Soviets removed religionists from the classroom as did Mao and the N. Koreans do. The cult of the "Great Leader" requires it. Communism requires it.

spendi, You have it the other way around; if we remove religionists, ID automatically disappears. Where does ID stand without a god/creator? PUFF!~

0 Replies

Right then. Let's see you remove them.

Fat chance! You don't even try. I've been reading Erich Neumann's The Great Mother all afternoon for the thread but I can't find any way to express the ideas to people who can only respond to this difficult subject as you anti-IDers do. It is obviously way over your heads.

Google the guy and also Camille Paglia's article about him.

You don't try. What chance have non-triers?

Why has no candidate declared their atheism?

I'll answer it--they don't see you lot as a basis for a drive to the White House. And who can blame them?

You can't answer questions on "group selection" and "kin selection" nor on the "measurement problem". You have probably never heard of them.

Just keep squawking eh? You have no answers. You just want the benefits of Christianity without its disciplines. Monkeys would think the same I suppose so if you are descended from monkeys it is only to be expected.

What does Sir say to the 14 year-old I posited? Answer that and argue with her hormones. And there are plenty of young girls at it right now. Why do you want to increase their numbers.

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

TKO wrote-

Quote:
What's wrong with ID being a part of a mythology or theology course?

Direct question. Direct answer please.

Read the thread.

Coward. Go hide in your pub.

T
K
O

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
real life wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
In one of those polls you linked, RL, is this:

CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll. Sept. 8-11, 2005. N=1,005 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.

"Which of the following statements comes closest to your views on the origin and development of human beings? Human beings have evolved over millions of years from other forms of life and God guided this process. Human beings have evolved over millions of years from other forms of life, but God had no part in this process. OR, God created human beings in their present form exactly the way the Bible describes it." Options rotated

Evolved,God Guided - 31%
Evolved, God Had No Part - 12%
Exactly As Bible Describes - 53%
Other (vol.) - 1%
Unsure - 3%

I would really like to see the demographics of the sample polled on this one. I do not believe a random sampling of Americans would produce a more than a small minority, much less a majority who believe human beings were created exactly as the Bible describes. I think easily 53% would agree that human kind evolved through a process including intelligent design and that the Biblical account is a theological, not scientific, explanation of that.

And despite Wandel's heroic efforts in posting source after source of efforts to teach Creationism as science suggesting a big problem, I cannot believe that more than a small number of fundamentalists would be pushing that. Any broad consensus to that end would be far more likely to be a backlash against a policy of teaching that there is no Intelligent Design.

I believe the very large number of Christians and Jews would not want Intelligent Design to be taught as science, but neither do they want science to pretend to be able to deny the reality of intelligent design. In other words, teach the kids science; even be honest about the theories of Intelligent Design and how science cannot explain all that away; but otherwise leave religion, either pro or con, out of it.

Actually as you can see, the various polls have the number at between 40%-60% on this same question.

Maybe this surprises you, but the consistent result is hard to brush off.

Maybe so, but fate has kept me in broad ecumenical circles for much of my adult life and that has included close contact with fundamentalists, charismatics, groups with polity, congregationalists, low church, high church, and everything in between. Among all these, those who take the Genesis 1 and 2 stories absolutely literally are extremely rare. The few who do even have elaborate explanations for how the two Genesis stories don't really contradict each other, but the huge majority do take the accounts as theological teachings and not intended to be consistent with science.

So again, I would really like to see the demographics of those polled. I'm not buying that the poll results show a genuine random sampling of Americans.

Again, you're not dealing with 'a' poll, but many.

If you want to think the entire polling industry is off it's rocker, well ok.

One needs no 'elaborate explanation' for Genesis 1 and 2.

One expressly puts forth a chronology. The other does not claim to be setting forth events chronologically.

One supposes a chronology and so does the other. Neither claims a chronology. Neither claims to be a scientific document either however much anti-religionists like to use conflict between Genesis and science to denigrate the Bible. Genesis 1 is a pure theological statement illustrating that God is the source of all that has ever been--a declaration of ID if you will. It was written long after Genesis II which is mostly from a much earlier era using anthropomorphic illustrations or metaphors to explain why things are the way they are. Genesis II leads into the story of Adam and Eve which allows for all things to not necessarily be ID, but allows for some things to be caused by the irresponsibility (sin) of humankind. Both are beautifully expressed and quite trustworthy for what they are.

Genesis I is more correct scientifically in having dry land, surface water, and plants in place before the appearance of humans and the other animals. There is a definite problem with the fourth day in having the creation of the sun, moon, and stars after plants and animals were created, but this is a minor technicality and again the writers were not writing a scientific paper. Genesis II is problematic in humans and animals being created before any form of vegetation, but in the world of metaphor, literary and poetic license is allowed.

But it is for these reasons that I dispute a conclusion that most Americans believe that it all happened exactly as described in the Bible. I don't think that. And I don't think you think that. I think people might respond that they think the Bible is trustworthy or reliable, but I just don't believe that many people take everything in the Bible absolutely literally. The only large group that does that are the anti-religionists who denigrate all of it.

I'll look at the polls again, but I think on this particular issue, the polls might not contradict me so much. I did zero in on that one that does suggest most people are Bible literalists. That simply would not hold up in my world, however.

At any rate, as I have already said, I think any science teacher can acknowledge to the class that there is a large body of people, many quite well educated, who accept a concept of ID and this concept could explain many of the things in the universe that evolution cannot. I see no reason that the Bible or any particular religion would need to be mentioned in order to do that. And I think it would not be inappropriate.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

At any rate, as I have already said, I think any science teacher can acknowledge to the class that there is a large body of people, many quite well educated, who accept a concept of MAGIC and this concept could explain many of the things in the universe that evolution cannot. I see no reason that the Bible or any particular religion would need to be mentioned in order to do that. And I think it would not be inappropriate.

Just one small change, in red above... same meaning. Notice how silly ID sounds when you take away it's mask.

0 Replies

TKO wrote-

Quote:

oward.

Don't demean yourself like that my dear. Such things as that are outside the limits of this thread and, hopefully, of the site.

I can't help it if you can't be arsed reading the thread. The question has been answered everywhichway. What mythology course? What theology course?

It was a stupid question.

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
At any rate, as I have already said, I think any science teacher can acknowledge to the class that there is a large body of people, many quite well educated, who accept a concept of MAGIC and this concept could explain many of the things in the universe that evolution cannot. I see no reason that the Bible or any particular religion would need to be mentioned in order to do that. And I think it would not be inappropriate.

Just one small change, in red above... same meaning. Notice how silly ID sounds when you take away it's mask.

No mask. What seems silly are those who can't or refuse to deal with a concept as presented and instead prefer to insert a red herring or straw man that is easier to attack.

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

TKO wrote-

Quote:
Coward.

Don't demean yourself like that my dear. Such things as that are outside the limits of this thread and, hopefully, of the site.

I can't help it if you can't be arsed reading the thread. The question has been answered everywhichway. What mythology course? What theology course?

It was a stupid question.

Listen precious, if you can't answer my direct question, your opinion on this topic is probably not refined enough. It's not my job to baby you through this.

Explain to me why ID would be taught in a science class instead of a religion, theology or mythology course?

What mythology course?
What theology course?
What religion course?

Why would it matter? Any of them would be fine.

T
K
O

0 Replies

Joe Nation wrote:

The problem, Foxfyre, is that ID is not a scientific theory. It can't be used to plug whatever gaps are claimed to exist because science doesn't work that way. Science doesn't say "We don't know so let's make up something really good." There has to be evidence to fill those gaps. Science says "This is what we have found to be true so far, we're not done yet." ID says "T'was an intelligent designer what done all this and that's all you need to know." You want to teach American children that?

And, by the way, if you start filling gaps with bunkum you stop looking for the actual evidence. That is no way to move science forward as history has shown again and again and again. (If the Chinese had continued their scientific expeditions of 1421 ... .)

And any science teacher alluding to ID would face the following questions:
How many Designers?
One? One Thousand? Three Designers and their Faithful Flying Dog, Skip?
How much was designed and how much evolved?
All designed?
Just the really hard parts?
Just us homos?
Was Homo Erectus a failed design?
Neanderthals? What apple did they eat in the Garden?
Did the Designer screw up by creating viruses?
And why make moths when you have so many butterflies?

Joe(the teacher might start longing to be a math instructor)Nation

Any science teacher worth his salt will readily acknowledge that there are many things beyond the reach of science to explain. To you and everybody else I repeat for probably the twentieth or thirtieth time on this thread: I am NOT advocating teaching ID in science class. I will actively oppose any ATTEMPT to teach ID as science. There is no know science by which it can be supported, and therefore it is inappropriate to teach as science as we understand science.

It is NOT inappropriate for a science teacher to acknowledge that many people, okay according to the credible polls Reallife posted, MOST Americans do believe in ID and this is one theory that could explain the holes left by evolutionary science. But as we cannot use science to deal with it, we will not be dealing with ID in science class.

And despite those with apparent reading disabilities who keep asking how ID can be taught without bringing the Bible or religion into it, it can be done as I have already explained that in some detail, and choose not to repeat myself. Realistically, an complete discussion of ID would require acknowledgment of religious beliefs concerning it, however, which would be inappropriate in a science class. So it's a good thing that I have not in any way or at any time advocated teaching ID in science class, huh.

0 Replies

Real Life: I looked at those polls again. And while several - not all- express a consensus that God rather than evolution created humans and two or three went with the Biblical account, only one used the phrase "Exactly as the Bible describes" which is the one I took exception to and still think must have targeted a particular demographic to get that response.

The problem with a lot of polls is they frequently don't allow the responders to tell what they really think, but rather require them to pick the best of not fully adequate options. (I experience the same phenomenon when pollsters call to ask me about my opinions on taxes, new roads, the economy, immigration, etc.) They often don't allow you to include a pertinent exception or qualification to your answers. Everything isn't so easily separated into neat little all inclusive boxes, but poll results sometimes make it look like it is.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Any science teacher worth his salt will readily acknowledge that there are many things beyond the reach of science to explain. To you and everybody else I repeat for probably the twentieth or thirtieth time on this thread: I am NOT advocating teaching ID in science class. I will actively oppose any ATTEMPT to teach ID as science. There is no know science by which it can be supported, and therefore it is inappropriate to teach as science as we understand science.

This is an agreeable and honest stance. A Scientist will certainly acknowledge that they connot explain art with science, but they can still empirically prove that art exists.

Foxfyre wrote:

It is NOT inappropriate for a science teacher to acknowledge that many people, okay according to the credible polls Reallife posted, MOST Americans do believe in ID and this is one theory that could explain the holes left by evolutionary science. But as we cannot use science to deal with it, we will not be dealing with ID in science class.

A good scientist and hopefully a good science teacher would be smart enough to simply discuss the unknowns involved with BB and Evolution. Even without discussion of theories, there is plenty to be said about the unknowns. Science isn't finished yet. Every year we learn more about the holes which seem to be getting smaller as we continue to improve our understanding of the physical world.

Foxfyre wrote:

And despite those with apparent reading disabilities who keep asking how ID can be taught without bringing the Bible or religion into it, it can be done as I have already explained that in some detail, and choose not to repeat myself. Realistically, an complete discussion of ID would require acknowledgment of religious beliefs concerning it, however, which would be inappropriate in a science class. So it's a good thing that I have not in any way or at any time advocated teaching ID in science class, huh.

It is a good thing, but now it seems that you are supporting the idea of teaching things made of holes. If you are advocating that ID can explain the holes in science, what explains the holes in ID?

It seems that the only thing that offers an explanation for the problems in ID is religion by implication. ID is the just the gateway to religion.

Science >> holes >> ID >> holes >> religion

My method: Science >> holes >> science >> smaller holes >> science >> etc.

T
K
O

0 Replies

Foxy wrote-

Quote:

There is no known science by which it can be supported, and therefore it is inappropriate to teach as science as we understand science.

There are people who might disagree with that. It's very complex and I don't really know that much about it other than say that I quite like the use of "Magic". It's asociated I think with sounds and word patterns in language itself. And in art. I can't read the writing of an atheist except for a certain purpose. A chore really. It has no feel. Lacks poetry.

Like Communist Party dress in China compared to ladies fashions.

Language has destiny. It's dynamic. Flexible.

The feeling would be inculcated in kids if all their teachers, of whatever subjects, also had it. You can see the anti-ID approach in how TKO wants everything in nice neat categories with mechanical explanations in quick and simple and exact words.

But teaching the theory is out of the question. For that you have to come in from the other end. You find it. Maybe you have to have a certain temperment. But the subject as far as I can tell covers linguistics, semantics, genetics, music--everything. Vico is the start part I think.

The difference between the small print on an insurance document and Proust.

If all the teachers are atheists, and they are going to have to be if anti-ID wins out, you would eradicate it from your Nation in a couple of generations. That's already underway. And there are positives to it but they are all materialistic.

Anti-IDers don't seem to realise that we can already sense the progress they are making and you were right to speak of a "backlash". For every reformation there's a counter-reformation. This isn't a stationary subject.
The positives, more goodies, have a cost. Man does not live by bread alone. If it's moving with a direction it has a destination.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

But it is for these reasons that I dispute a conclusion that most Americans believe that it all happened exactly as described in the Bible. I don't think that. And I don't think you think that.

The problem is that he DOES think that. Exactly, literally, identically as described in the bible. He even thinks that the universe is 6,000-10,000 years old.

0 Replies

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know