Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Quote:

No time to falter
(Las Vegas Sun Editorial, January 19, 2008)

A new report by the National Science Board says the United States leads the world in science and technology.

But the nation's reliance on foreign-born workers for jobs in those fields, and the fact that Americans' scientific knowledge isn't improving, could imperil the nation's global lead as other countries advance economically.

The board oversees the National Science Foundation, which is a major source of funding for scientific research. Its biennial report on science and engineering includes data from surveys of science and mathematics education trends among U.S. students and trends regarding scientific knowledge and attitudes among Americans in general.

Some of the results are surprising. For example, only 66 percent of men and 46 percent of women gave the correct answers when asked whether the Earth orbits the Sun and how long it takes the Earth to do so.

Americans' answers to such questions were not comparatively worse than those of residents in other developed countries, the report says. But Americans were more ignorant than people of other nations when it came to evolution and the Big Bang theory of the creation of the universe two theories that provide the foundation for modern biology and physics. Only 47 percent of U.S. men and 40 percent of women polled in 2006 correctly asserted that modern humans "developed from earlier species of animals."

The large number of Americans "who favor coverage of nonscientific material about human origins in public school science classes" is among the factors that science and technology proponents consider "disquieting," the report says.

Other trends are those showing that significant numbers of Americans think that technological advances happen too fast and that scientific research "doesn't pay enough attention" to morality.

With one of the globe's highest standards of living and access to education, Americans may take scientific and technological advances for granted we've typically made most of them.

But as developing nations catch up economically, that may not continue to be the case. We cannot allow the teaching of scientific foundations to founder in our public schools if the United States is to lead the next generation of scientists.

This little ideological war going on re science versus ID can't do anything but turn kids off.

This "little ideological war" is ID vs science. Science could care less what you do in your church or in your home.

Other cultures had various symbolisms to represent benign and threatening forces. That's why they had no science of our sort.

Diest TKO wrote:

spendius wrote:

c.i. wrote-

Quote:

spendi, Please address the issue about gaps in ID;

There are none.

Spendi - Back this up or shut up coward.

T
K
O

What , specifically , do you propose cannot be accounted for by an Intelligent Designer, Deist?

Evolutionists have often claimed that there is some evidence that 'only evolution explains'.

But they've never been willing to post such. I wonder if you are.

Foxfyre wrote:

This little ideological war going on re science versus ID can't do anything but turn kids off.

I'm sorry, but as we've discussed. This "little ideological war" is ID vs science. Science could care less what you do in your church or in your home.

And I'd appreciate a response to my post a few pages ago where I challenged your assertion that ID is not just a Christian thing.

Like the Greeks.? um.. no.
Like Egyptians? um....no.
Like the Chinese? um....no.
Like the Babylonians? um... no.

For us, popular and shallow are synonymous--in art as in science--but for Classical man it was not so.

Consider our sciences too. Every one of them, without exception, has besides its elementary groundwork certain "higher" regions that are inaccessible to the layman--symbols, these also of our will-to-infinity and directional energy. The public for whom the last chapters of up-to-date physics have been written numbers at the utmost a thousand persons, and certain problems of modern mathematics are accessible only to a much smaller circle still--- for our "popular" science is without value,detraquee, falsified. We have not only an art for artists, but also a mathematics for mathematicians, a politic for politicians (of which the profanus vulgus of newspaper readers has not the smallest inklink, whereas Classical politics never got beyond the horizon of the Agora), a religion for the "religious genius" and a poetry for philosophers. Indeed, we make take the craving for wide effect as a sufficient index by itself of the commencing and already perceptible decline of Western science. That the severe esoteric of the Baroque Age is felt now as a burden, is a symptom of sinking strength and of the dulling of that distance-sense which confessed the limitation with humility. The few sciences that have kept the old fineness, depth, and energy of conclusion and deduction and have not been tainted with journalism--and few indeed they are, for theoretical physics, mathematics, Catholic dogma, and perhaps jurisprudence exhaust the list--address themselves to a very narrow and chosen band of experts. And it is this expert, and his opposite the layman, that are totally lacking in the Classical life, wherein everyone knew everything. For us, the polarity of expert and layman has all the significance of a high symbol, and when the tension of this distance is beginning to slacken, there the Faustian life is fading out.

The conclusion to be argued from this as regards the advances of Western science in its last phase (which will cover, or quite possibly will not cover, the next two centuries) is, that in proportion as megalapolitan shallowness and triviality drive arts and sciences on to the bookstall and into the factory, the posthumous spirit of the Culture will confine itself more and more to very narrow circles; and that there, remote from advertisement, it will work in ideas and forms so abstruse that only a handful of superfine intelligences will be capable of attaching meanings to them.

real life wrote:

Diest TKO wrote:

spendius wrote:

c.i. wrote-

Quote:

spendi, Please address the issue about gaps in ID;

There are none.

Spendi - Back this up or shut up coward.

T
K
O

What , specifically , do you propose cannot be accounted for by an Intelligent Designer, Deist?

Evolutionists have often claimed that there is some evidence that 'only evolution explains'.

But they've never been willing to post such. I wonder if you are.

1) Who created the creator.
2) Who is the creator.
3) What resources are required to do these types of creation.
4) for every claim that ID has sought to capitolize on, that is to say the current gaps in understand in evolutionary theory and BB, how does ID prove that we will never understand those gaps? Saying that we currently do no understand does not mean that we will never understand.

for starts. I can't wait to read your non-answer.

T
K
O

Diest TKO wrote:

real life wrote:

Diest TKO wrote:

spendius wrote:

c.i. wrote-

Quote:

spendi, Please address the issue about gaps in ID;

There are none.

Spendi - Back this up or shut up coward.

T
K
O

What , specifically , do you propose cannot be accounted for by an Intelligent Designer, Deist?

Evolutionists have often claimed that there is some evidence that 'only evolution explains'.

But they've never been willing to post such. I wonder if you are.

1) Who created the creator.
2) Who is the creator.
3) What resources are required to do these types of creation.
4) for every claim that ID has sought to capitolize on, that is to say the current gaps in understand in evolutionary theory and BB, how does ID prove that we will never understand those gaps? Saying that we currently do no understand does not mean that we will never understand.

for starts. I can't wait to read your non-answer.

T
K
O

So you are saying these are things that 'only evolution explains' ?

This identifies why spendi has so much difficulty with this topic; he's still relying on old information.

You are fawning over the childlike compositions of young ladies who's fathers play golf with the editor. Do you not yet know a simple thing like that

I think his major in college was "Literature."

This seems to be a running "gag" line that spendi uses frequently. I wonder whether hes a failed author or a literary wannabe?

You are fawning over the childlike compositions of young ladies who's fathers play golf with the editor. Do you not yet know a simple thing like that