Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Foxfyre wrote:

Teachers should not be teaching that evolution is the only scientific theory to explain the origin of species.

Evolution definitely IS the only scientific theory to explain the origin of species, and that point can not be overemphasized to every student. If you have another scientific theory for the origin of species, then let's hear it.

Foxfyre wrote:

And should you be teaching my child and refer to his/her religious beliefs as 'magic', you would be answering to me.

I would hesitate to get into any discussion of religion with a student, but if cornered, I would tell them that they had the right to believe anything they want to believe. But if they asked, I wouldn't try to deceive them by denying that the supernatural is the same as magic, because it is.

If a parent has a problem with that, then they should get their kids out of public school and cloister them at home where they can be protected from reality.

0 Replies

Quote:

Because "Annals Of Improbable Research" was already taken
(By Stuart Fox, NYU Scienceline, January 28, 2008)

Say what you will about proponents of Creationism and Intelligent Design, at least they seem to understand how science works. Rather than simply pointing to the Bible whenever asked to substantiate their beliefs, the movement largely propelled by Answers in Genesis noticed that people associate scientists, museums, and the like with facts. Thus, to generate their own veneer of facts, supporter of Creationism and ID set up a new counter-infrastructure that mimics science but produces Intelligent Design friendly results.

This infrastructure has "scientists" ( Behe, I'm looking at you), a museum (which claims to be within a days drive for two-thirds of the US population), and now, it's own honest to god, if you will, peer reviewed scientific journal.

That's right, you read this correctly. Issue 7177 of the journal Nature notes that the Answers in Genesis group has started its own journal to compete with, amongst other things, the journal Nature. Aside from the rarity of a magazine writing a piece about a competitor, this article was also jarring because it set in contrast the two peer review systems.

On the surface, the two editorial boards follow the exact same rules. The peer review in Nature and the peer review in Answers Research Journal are conducted the exact same way, the difference being what the peer reviewers deem to be legitimate fact. But wait, don't both sets of peer reviewers get their authority from people just like them? Uh-oh.

Now don't get me wrong, I'm not claiming that articles published in ARJ are as valid as those published in Science or Nature, but you have to give credit to Answers in Genesis for hitting science where it hurts. Every scientist has complained at one point or another about the often fickle and random nature of the peer review system upon which scientific fact is based. With the ARJ, the supporters of Creationism have once again brilliantly exploited the chinks in science's armor to generate legitimacy for a viewpoint with no real factual basis.

This is a perfect moment for scientists to sit back and think about how they can use the infrastructure of religion to better educate the public about science. If science is going to reach the people that keep institutions like Answers in Genesis afloat, scientists need to go beyond putting Darwin fish on their car and using Pastafarianism as an excuse to take extra holidays off from work and really learn how the other side works.

0 Replies

ros wrote-

Quote:

Do you understand that what we are objecting to is any attempt to single out evolution among the sciences, as being in any way different from any other science in its level of validity?

It is different.

And what does "validity" mean. What you think it means I guess on past performances.

You want something to object to which singles you out from ordinary folks
is more likely your reason.

Evolution is proven to be different by the amount of controversy that has raged around it since Darwin kicked off. We are singling it out for removal from the curriculum because we think it is dangerous. We like our way of life. It's already under threat from evolutionary forces without getting it into classrooms instead of proper diet lessons and plant cultivation.

We don't think you have the slightest scientific interest in evolution. It's just a wedge. You're rowing your boat ashore only this time you won't be landing.

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
Teachers should not be teaching that evolution is the only scientific theory to explain the origin of species.

Evolution definitely IS the only scientific theory to explain the origin of species, and that point can not be overemphasized to every student. If you have another scientific theory for the origin of species, then let's hear it.

I want my child taught the evolution is the only widely accepted scientific theory to explain the origin of species that we have now. That does not necessarily mean that there is not more to learn that could change the scientific opinion about any of it. For now, we will learn what we know now.....open your textbook to page......... In other words, I don't want my child taught closed minded scinece

Quote:

Foxfyre wrote:
And should you be teaching my child and refer to his/her religious beliefs as 'magic', you would be answering to me.

I would hesitate to get into any discussion of religion with a student, but if cornered, I would tell them that they had the right to believe anything they want to believe. But if they asked, I wouldn't try to deceive them by denying that the supernatural is the same as magic, because it is.

If a parent has a problem with that, then they should get their kids out of public school and cloister them at home where they can be protected from reality.

And here you cross that line that has triggered the backlash and prompted all those silly lawsuits and court cases and school board flaps. You would be completely improper, incorrect, and totally out of line making such a statement to a student. You also beautifully illustrate how it happens more often than the anti-religionists want to admit.

0 Replies

Notice dear viewer how Mr Fox of Scienceline, in wande's quote, simply by passing his hands back and forth over the top hat, transmuted "proponents of Creationism and Intelligent Design" into the "Answers in Genesis group" and proceeded from there to suggesting that the former are seeking to "hit Science where it hurts". A proposition so stupid and the method of delivering it so underhand that I would immediately throw the magazine away on reading it and cancel my subscription if I was daft enough to have taken one out.

That's a form of magic ros. I know it only works on the kids but it is still magic.

But I agree with Mr Fox's final remarks. In fact I had just previously suggested a similar approach.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

And here you cross that line that has triggered the backlash and prompted all those silly lawsuits and court cases and school board flaps. You would be completely improper, incorrect, and totally out of line making such a statement to a student.

I suppose next you'll want teachers to withhold access to dictionaries so students are protected from synonyms.

Foxfyre wrote:

You also beautifully illustrate how it happens more often than the anti-religionists want to admit.

You're living in a dream world Fox. No court cases have come about becaue anyone explained to a student that the definiton of supernatural is synomyous with magic. All the court cases have come about because creationists are trying to insert their religious veiws into science classes in public school.

0 Replies

ros wrote-

Quote:

I suppose next you'll want teachers to withhold access to dictionaries so students are protected from synonyms.

That is commonplace. I would guess you approve of most of the synonyms that are absent from dictionaries being absent.

We have a thesaurus here published by the VIZ organisation and very popular which I think you would agree to deny the students access.

Once again you are selecting which synonyms you wish to include and which to delete. Same old story.

0 Replies

"Children, we will now be learning addition. First I must acknowledge the following:
1. Euclid can not answer all questions, any more than any number theory can.
2. There is more yet to learn than what any mathematician has ever devised.
3. There are other theories out there such as 2 plus 2 equals 5. However, since this can not be mathematically proven, I am not allowed to discuss it in math class. (I realize that I just discussed this other theory but I was told to acknowledge it and then to confuse you further by saying it can not be discussed.)"

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Teachers should not be teaching that evolution is the only scientific theory to explain the origin of species.

Foxfyre wrote:

I certainly have at no time advocated teaching ID as science.

http://www.able2know.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=3064793#3064793

I suppose you do not see conflict between those two statements. Is there some other scientific theory other than ID that you had in mind?

0 Replies

mesquite, That shows clearly that they are unable to see their own inconsistencies.

0 Replies

Perhaps if we gave Wallace his due and call it Wallace's Theory of Evolution the problem with the ID hypothesis will go away.

One must remember that the modern theory completely replaced an earlier flawed evolutionary hypothesis (Lamarck) only after Stalin's refutation of Darwin, oops Wallace, managed to turn Russia from Europes breadbasket into a starving nation.

Which leads to a posit---what would happen to US food production if the Department of Agriculture demanded compliance with ID?

Rap

0 Replies

ID can be "that" dangerous!

0 Replies

mesquite wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

Teachers should not be teaching that evolution is the only scientific theory to explain the origin of species.

Foxfyre wrote:
I certainly have at no time advocated teaching ID as science.

http://www.able2know.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=3064793#3064793

I suppose you do not see conflict between those two statements. Is there some other scientific theory other than ID that you had in mind?

Try including my entire context Mesquite instead of cherry picking a line to attack. And you will see that no, there is no conflict of any kind between those two statements, nor have I changed my position or opinion on this in any way since I first posted on this thread.

0 Replies

The reason that the social consequences argument upsets anti-IDers enough for them to not be able to even look at it is because it challenges them with the necessity of adapting their habits and practices to their abstract theories, within the circularities of which no such disturbers of the peace as bloody human bloody beings bloody well get in the way. It is a trance like state actually. It's why they go on about "reality" so much.

Such an adaptation would require effort and a great deal of re-education and those things are seemingly not on the anti-IDer's agenda. His capacity with the English Language is stuck in the same groove.

Those ceremonies on leaving college blow their egos up to such proprtions that there's no room left between its exterior surface and the interior cranial superficies, including the nooks and crannies, for any other idea to get a foothold thereafter. (I like mixed metaphors).

In Day of the Locusts Bob Dylan has it bursting its bounds.

0 Replies

spendi, When you talk about "abstract theories," that's the very definition of ID. Science is based on observable evidence.

0 Replies

I explained that just a couple of hours back.

Are you not paying attention?

If you are going to ask me to explain ID and when I do so, in dribs and drabs I'll admit, you either can't understand it or you choose to pretend I hadn't explained it.

Nobody can do anything about that.

rap- I think you used that trick Mr Fox tried running past your glazed eyes in wande's quote. We are interested in American food production forecasts with atheists running the show. Your current food production has not been under their management yet.

I don't think you should broad brush Stalin quite so crudely. Nor draw any conclusions from the daub.

And Lamark, Wallace and Darwin are only a small part of European culture.

This thread is a bit complex.

0 Replies

wandeljw wrote:

"Children, we will now be learning addition. First I must acknowledge the following:
1. Euclid can not answer all questions, any more than any number theory can.
2. There is more yet to learn than what any mathematician has ever devised.
3. There are other theories out there such as 2 plus 2 equals 5. However, since this can not be mathematically proven, I am not allowed to discuss it in math class. (I realize that I just discussed this other theory but I was told to acknowledge it and then to confuse you further by saying it can not be discussed.)"

Exactly

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
And should you be teaching my child and refer to his/her religious beliefs as 'magic', you would be answering to me.

I would hesitate to get into any discussion of religion with a student, but if cornered, I would tell them that they had the right to believe anything they want to believe. But if they asked, I wouldn't try to deceive them by denying that the supernatural is the same as magic, because it is.

If a parent has a problem with that, then they should get their kids out of public school and cloister them at home where they can be protected from reality.

I have to agree with Foxfyre Ros. Magic is not an equivalent synonym for religious belief. Superstition is a considerably more accurate term.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

I was also among a group who went to bat for parents who wanted their kids removed from two classes where the kids were being told there was no God. (Yes, one was a science class.)

By the way, I would stand beside you in objecting to any class where students were told there is no God. It is not the place of science teachers, or any other teachers to make such a statement.

However, I remain unconvinced that this is actually happening in all but rare cases. Certainly we have not seen this type of thing in the courts as much as we have seen the creationist attack on science.

I'm curious about the details of this particular instance you ran into. Was the teacher actually saying "there is no God", or were they simply teaching evolution and having parents object to the naturalistic basis of science?

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

mesquite wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:

Teachers should not be teaching that evolution is the only scientific theory to explain the origin of species.

Foxfyre wrote:
I certainly have at no time advocated teaching ID as science.

http://www.able2know.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=3064793#3064793

I suppose you do not see conflict between those two statements. Is there some other scientific theory other than ID that you had in mind?

Try including my entire context Mesquite instead of cherry picking a line to attack. And you will see that no, there is no conflict of any kind between those two statements, nor have I changed my position or opinion on this in any way since I first posted on this thread.

I included a link to the post that the quotes were taken from so that context was available. I did not include all of the rest of the nonsense because it did not provide any meaningful addition that would change the thrust of your statements. It only added to the noise level.

There is one and only one scientific theory to explain the origin of the species. Your two statements are most certainly at odds.

0 Replies

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know