Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Philosophical inquiries into beauty and symmetry can and are being taught in philosophy classes. No need for science teachers to get involved.

real life wrote:

The sticking point usually comes when hyper-naturalists huff and puff "There ARE NO problems with the theory!!!!!!!!!!!"

Based on your posts, it's clear that what you consider "problems", most scientist don't consider to be "problems".

For example, you often list "lack of transitional fossils" as one of your "problems", yet we know there are transitional fossils. So clearly this "problem" is not a real "problem", but merely an aspect of your self imposed blindness.

Do you have any real "problems" with the theory that you can offer as an example? You've been asked for this before and for two years all you've come up with is bullcrap, so I hope you will at least come up with some new bullcrap for us to talk about this time.

Joe Nation wrote:

Quote:

They believe God designed the process and oversees it to some degree. They widely vary on how much oversight.

To some degree. This is what you want to teach to American children as Science? There's some things we don't know, so we just make up some stuff to make us feel better. We can't answer some questions about the universe prior to the big bang, so here's something we pulled out of the air.

Instead, what is wrong with saying "We don't know."

Joe(They vary on how much oversight, but claim infallibility.)Nation

hi Joe,

Good to hear from you.

I've never said that public schools should teach that God guided evolution. Nor have I said that public schools should teach YEC.

You ask 'what about "We don't know" '?

I think teaching them 'science does not provide an answer to the question of the origin of the universe' would be proper.

In addition, I have no objection to children learning what Darwinism is AND what the problems with the theory are.

The sticking point usually comes when hyper-naturalists huff and puff "There ARE NO problems with the theory!!!!!!!!!!!"

Have a great weekend.

Lack of transitional fossils, especially prior to the Cambrian explosion, is a huge problem , whether you recognize it or not.

Lack of transitional species living today is also a huge problem. There should be great difficulty EVER distinguishing one species from another because there should be MANY 'in-betweens' that making drawing a line nigh to impossible. But this is not the case.

Ros, you have consistently denied that evolution means that (in order to get a new species started) a member of one species (say species X) must give birth to a member of a new species (say species Y).

Let's look at the family dog, will your dog (or any other) EVER give birth to something that is NOT a dog?

The largest point of disagreement is that I may put more faith in Darwin than you and Spendi do. My thesis in all this, however, is the concept that while science teachers should not be teaching ID in science class, but neither should they be teaching against ID, especially in the way the anti-IDers on this thread do.

Foxfyre wrote:

The largest point of disagreement is that I may put more faith in Darwin than you and Spendi do. My thesis in all this, however, is the concept that while science teachers should not be teaching ID in science class, but neither should they be teaching against ID, especially in the way the anti-IDers on this thread do.

Just as you are not proposing teaching ID in science class (and I get that, and I agree with that), we are not proposing teaching against ID. All we are doing is observing the definition of ID as non-scientific and equivalent to any other form of magic. And that's simply the fact of the definitions.

There is no more need for any teacher to explain to any child that there is an alternative to evolution called ID, than there is to say there is an alternative to evolution called magic. The two statements are identical.

Philosophical inquiries into beauty and symmetry can and are being taught in philosophy classes. No need for science teachers to get involved.

Geez, it makes it really difficult to debate this subject when the anti-IDers refuse to address the argument the IDers are making but continue to fabricate arguments for the IDers (or imply them) so they can more easily attack them.

You've been asked for this before and for two years all you've come up with is bullcrap, so I hope you will at least come up with some new bullcrap for us to talk about this time.

MS in 'creation science' nonsense

spendius wrote:

wande wrote-

Quote:

Philosophical inquiries into beauty and symmetry can and are being taught in philosophy classes. No need for science teachers to get involved.

There is every reason for science teachers to be involved with the qualities Foxy described so well.

Having a bunch of science teachers who are unappreciative of such matters is the road to ruin IMO. And science teachers who are appreciative don't "teach" it. They teach the science in a way that people who are the sort of IDers Foxy has in mind would naturally do.[/[/b]quote]

You think? I hadn't really thought about it that way before, but since you bring it up, I look back to a couple of really great biology teachers that I had. Both taught Darwin passionately and I think probably helped instill a love of science in most of us that has never abated. They also pushed us to examine the wonders of nature that defy explanation--the amazing structure of a bee's eye, the replication of biological features found among some species around the world when other species have significant differences, the symmetry in the microscopic world, the mysteries of mutation, etc. etc. etc.

They never once mentioned intelligent design but neither did they attribute everything to Darwin that has already been identified and/or is 'yet to be discovered'. They did leave us with an understanding that in the grand scheme of things, we and our knowledge is limited, and there are no barriers to what we may someday know. And any of us who held a concept of some form of ID were not disappointed or frustrated when we focused on the science. In other words science and ID co-existed quite peacefully in these classes.

The largest point of disagreement is that I may put more faith in Darwin than you and Spendi do.

Oxymoronic. no?

RL is trying to pitch his "there are no transitional fossils" crap. He must go through life Un learning all his information, or else he just averts his eyes from anything that even hints of discovery in science. How does RL explain the successively more developed fossils of animals that have their "first occurences" at strata later than less developed forms. RL must spend time in developing skills in observation and pure description. He shoots for interpretation without facts to support him.


Foxy is trying to sit in the middle of the road (She will probably get run over by either science or the Creationists).

Spendi's just a moron. He has no idea what ID even is. Or else hed know what Darwin said about the " lack of intelligence" of the Intelligent Designer

How does one teach against ID?

Let's look at the family dog, will your dog (or any other) EVER give birth to something that is NOT a dog?

Quote:

spendius wrote:

wande wrote-

Quote:

Philosophical inquiries into beauty and symmetry can and are being taught in philosophy classes. No need for science teachers to get involved.

There is every reason for science teachers to be involved with the qualities Foxy described so well.

Having a bunch of science teachers who are unappreciative of such matters is the road to ruin IMO. And science teachers who are appreciative don't "teach" it. They teach the science in a way that people who are the sort of IDers Foxy has in mind would naturally do.[/[/b]quote]

You think? I hadn't really thought about it that way before, but since you bring it up, I look back to a couple of really great biology teachers that I had. Both taught Darwin passionately and I think probably helped instill a love of science in most of us that has never abated. They also pushed us to examine the wonders of nature that defy explanation--the amazing structure of a bee's eye, the replication of biological features found among some species around the world when other species have significant differences, the symmetry in the microscopic world, the mysteries of mutation, etc. etc. etc.

They never once mentioned intelligent design but neither did they attribute everything to Darwin that has already been identified and/or is 'yet to be discovered'. They did leave us with an understanding that in the grand scheme of things, we and our knowledge is limited, and there are no barriers to what we may someday know. And any of us who held a concept of some form of ID were not disappointed or frustrated when we focused on the science. In other words science and ID co-existed quite peacefully in these classes.

Does anyone have any proof that science teachers are out there saying "Darwin's Theory of Evolution by Means of Natural Selection means that God did not create man, the heavens, or the earth".

I'm 10 years out of high school, but my biology teachers taught evolution, never mentioned ID, and we got along fine too.

It seems the ONLY controversy here is in the school board and on web forums. This is a controversy CAUSED by CHRISTIANS.

Is a Chihuahua a Great Dane? Quite a difference there. How would you go about explaining those differences, they are both dogs, right?

I have faith in Darwinism in the limited intellectual box it is in. It is when you step outside of that box that my objection arises. And I spend my life outside of that box, as most people do.