Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Surely, if a man will but take a view of all Popery, he shall easily see that a great part of it is mere magic.

Morality comes from compassion which comes from empathy which is a neural function of our biology

I know what the basis of my religious beliefs are and you don't. So let's leave that out of it.

Please answer my question re what you statement is saying to that child.

Please explain how that would not be seen as a criticism of the child's belief.

Please explain how that is not a form of Atheistic indoctrination.

Foxfyre wrote:

I know what the basis of my religious beliefs are and you don't. So let's leave that out of it.

No problem. I don't have a clue what you actually believe. I only know the basis of some religious beliefs.

Foxfyre wrote:

Please answer my question re what you statement is saying to that child.

My statement is saying that the definition of supernatural is synonymous with magic.

Foxfyre wrote:

Please explain how that would not be seen as a criticism of the child's belief.

In order to criticize a belief, I would have to know what that belief is (just as you pointed out above). Since I don't know, nor care, what a particular person's belief is, how can providing them with the definition of a word be a criticism of their belief.

Unless you consider the fact that the words are defined that way to be an inherent criticism, but then it has nothing to do with me, other than I happened to be the messenger. Don't shoot the messenger.

Foxfyre wrote:

Please explain how that is not a form of Atheistic indoctrination.

If someone thinks the world is flat, and I explain that it isn't, am I indoctrinating them into my belief system, or just explaining physics.

Are you objecting to the science being taught in public schools because it assumes methodological naturalism as a foundation to its process? Do you think that science education itself is atheistic indoctrination?

My statement is saying that the definition of supernatural is synonymous with magic.

I only know the basis of some religious beliefs.

If someone thinks the world is flat, and I explain that it isn't, am I indoctrinating them into my belief system, or just explaining physics.

Do you think that science education itself is atheistic indoctrination?

Remember all this is in the context of a teacher in the science class interacting with a student in the science class. For you to say this, something you absolutely cannot support through any scientific medium, is tantamount to preaching religious doctrine to that child and it is entirely inappropriate to do so. Which has been the foundation of my argument all along.

Your subsequent assertion that you were not speaking in class, though that was clearly the context of the question, is a diversion and sidestep of the issue unbecoming to you.

I do not and have not at any time objected to science being taught in the public schools, nor have I at any time suggested that it is appropriate to teach any form of ID or Creationism as science in the public school. I have said this or a reasonable facsimile of this probably dozens of times now.

Teachers should not be teaching that evolution is the only scientific theory to explain the origin of species. They can certainly teach that it is suffiicently accepted in the scientific community to qualify as 'fact' and the students will be required to know what it is. But for everything we know, there is infinitely more that we don't know. So we don't close our minds.
http://www.able2know.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=3064793#3064793

If you don't believe me, then shove off

Teachers should not be teaching that evolution is the only scientific theory to explain the origin of species. They can certainly teach that it is suffiicently accepted in the scientific community to qualify as 'fact' and the students will be required to know what it is. But for everything we know, there is infinitely more that we don't know. So we don't close our minds.
http://www.able2know.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=3064793#3064793

Spendi - Are trying to suggest that morality did not exist prior to Judism or Christianity?

What about the Native Americans?

T
K
O

foxfyre

Quote:

Teachers should not be teaching that evolution is the only scientific theory to explain the origin of species. They can certainly teach that it is suffiicently accepted in the scientific community to qualify as 'fact' and the students will be required to know what it is. But for everything we know, there is infinitely more that we don't know. So we don't close our minds.
http://www.able2know.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=3064793#3064793

Your first sentence is a leading statement that is a mis-application of what natural selection is. So far, unfortunately for your ilk, , IT IS THE ONLY SCIENTIFIC THEORY TO EXPLAIN ORIGIN OF SPECIES All the rest is non scientific. You conflate the "gaps" in knowledge regardin natural selection to be an automatic default to ID. WEll thats sloppy thinking. If there were any competing theory, itd be discussed openly at the conferences, all scientists in the field are openly competitive. So if there were anything to ID, dont you think that careers could be made by being the "Dr Penrose" or even the "Darwin" of ID? The problem with ID is that it cannot stand scrutiny of the type that all discoveries are put under. ID has a habit of "sounding almost reasonable" until its components are looked at and it falls on its own accord. So, I ask you, why must we waste time in class teaching what doesnt work>(we have a seminar on "Modernist thinking and DArwin", which includes the material that was developed by Lenny Flak regarding the history of the modern Creationist/ID movements. Ill see if I cant find a link from Flacks material.

It may be more than you are willing to accept, because I get a distinct impression that you are unwilling to accept evidence, testimony, or history, and that, (IMHO) defines a nicely closed mind.

ros addressed a lady with-

Quote:

If you don't believe me, then shove off

which, besides being disrespecful, is dictatorial.

Anti-IDer last resort tactics coming soon to a school near you if that side wins. They are only sweet to those who are sweet to them. Big deal. What a high moral tone.

Balony. You're in the middle of a discussion on Darwin and the kid asks you what about ID or what about God? You don't have to know what religious teachings the child has in order to formulate an appropriate answer that won't mess with the kid's religious beliefs or concerns and/or won't violate the integrity of the science class. To feign being 'cornered' and equating such belief to magic is both inappropriate and way over the line. Again, I'm not buying that you were referring to 'outside the classroom and in the hallway somewhere.'

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

Yup. When the insults start flying and they become more and more personally insulting, dismissive, and increasingly fanatical and screechy, we can be absolutely 100% certain we won the argument or at least they have absolutely nothing with which to refute it.