97
   

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

 
 
USAFHokie80
 
  1  
Wed 6 Feb, 2008 08:14 pm
If we were so intelligently designed, why do people have wisdom teeth? The majority of people do not have room in their mouths for the extra teeth, and they must be cut out - like mine. They obviously aren't needed, and obviously weren't intelligent.
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Thu 7 Feb, 2008 01:34 am
USAFHokie80 wrote:
If we were so intelligently designed, why do people have wisdom teeth? The majority of people do not have room in their mouths for the extra teeth, and they must be cut out - like mine. They obviously aren't needed, and obviously weren't intelligent.


Really?

So did your ancestors 500 years ago go to the dentist and have their wisdom teeth cut out?

Why not?

I thought you said it MUST be done.

What you assume to be 'necessary' isn't really relevant, Hokie.

Can't you come up with anything better than this?
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Thu 7 Feb, 2008 01:41 am
wandeljw wrote:
rosborne979 wrote:
wandeljw wrote:
FLORIDA UPDATE

Quote:
Evolution: Just a theory?
(By MARC CAPUTO, Miami Herald, February 6, 2008)

a state Department of Education worker sent out a call-to-arms e-mail to fellow Christians, noting that teaching evolution will be "a COMPLETE contradiction of what we Teach them at home.''

There's the real problem.


That clearly shows what motivates opponents of the science education standards.


And this clearly shows what motivates opponents of these 'opponents' :

wandeljw wrote:
Joe Wolf, president of the pro-evolution Florida Citizens for Science, agreed.

"I think she's allowing her religious beliefs to interfere with her public duty," Wolf said. "I wish she hadn't done it. But I think it's an internal matter."


That's the real problem -- a desire to dictate how one may practice their beliefs.

Under the US Constitution there is to be no religious test for a public official.

To say, 'well, his/her religious behavior disqualifies him/her as a public official' is simply wrong.

What he/she does 'off the clock' is none of the Department's business.
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Thu 7 Feb, 2008 01:46 am
farmerman wrote:
IDjicy


It is sad indeed that petty insults pass as relevant commentary.

The shriller that evolutionists get, the more the public is going to turn them off.

Maybe I should just let them shoot themselves in the foot.
0 Replies
 
Francis
 
  1  
Thu 7 Feb, 2008 04:49 am
For those interested, I had fun reading this:

The Evolution of Man Scientifically Disproved
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Thu 7 Feb, 2008 07:19 am
rl, now attempting to mount a "high ground of debate said
Quote:
It is sad indeed that petty insults pass as relevant commentary.

The shriller that evolutionists get, the more the public is going to turn them off.

Maybe I should just let them shoot themselves in the foot.




Ive lost patience with you a while back. Your constant plucking of a single string of debate, while avoiding any technical detail has been duly noticed and commented upon by several members on several occasions.
You constantly try to reintroduce your bankrupt arguments without anything new in your science. You , every few weeks, attempt to re play your "Oceanic sediments on mountaintops arguments and you do it without considering THE FACTS of geology and Archeology. Your points are naive and humorous, howver I really dont think that youve ever considered the full aspects of where your "made up" data takes you.

So, when you continue to preach your factless logic as truth, you expose yourself to more ridicule. Id been fairly gentle with you because I had (wrongly) assumed that you were originally a student who was seeking information. Ive since left that assumption since Ive seen you post the same exact drivvel after youd been given sizable amounts of resources to show how your points were fallacious.
You are consistent and , now that Ive realized that youre just a shill, I shall not be patient . Ive ressurected Timbers IDiot and modified it to make up the term IDjit.(Cretinist has always been mine since 1989) Im more of a plain speaker than Timber was. Very Happy

Please dont lead with chin on your geo-and evo/devo "arguments" . Ill be as strident as I need in order to unmake your points whenever you stray into my area of discipline.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Thu 7 Feb, 2008 07:22 am
I mentioned the psychosomatic problem recently.

And a bunch of so-called scientifics have spent the time and space since then shovelling **** on it and, moreover, **** of a constant consistency and viscosity as if this problem is of no importance and thus worthy of burial.

And what is it of such overwhelming importance that is on their shovels? It is the "will she-won't she?" of the members of a school board, itself split, in some small corner of a state, famous for its hanging Chads and the mass illusions of Orlando, where average incomes are $4,000 below average US levels.

That is what this thread's so-called scientific members have brought into service to try to bury any mention of the psychosomatic problem. There are but two explanations of that.

1- Anti-IDers are scared witless of the subject.

2- Anti-IDers are incapable of ordering priorities and belittle anything they don't know about on the basis that what they don't know isn't worth knowing. And they don't even know that-

Quote:
It's a complete cop out to talk about ideas in that way and skip out the ideas.


And aspects of the psychosomatic problem are what this topic is all about and the only scientific approach possible. Even accident proneness is linked to psychological states.

Psychosomatic affects, I'll not call them effects in this context, are the first priority in our sad and sorry lives where physical want has been eliminated. In all our lives. What happens in St Petersburg school board meetings is so trivial by the side of that that if there was a Richter scale the latter would not raise the needle from its position at rest. Even in St Petersburg itself the matter will hardly create a stir except among those who want it to for their own reasons all of which are directly linked to psychosomatic considerations of one sort or another.

So the shrinking of anti-IDers from my introducing the subject tells me, as a certainty, that there are no scientists on that side of the argument. And their strategy of burying the subject, the only one of any importance, tells me, as a certainty, that they are totalitarians and incurable ones at that.

They obviously have never heard of the physiology of laughter or other excitable cells and when they have heard a sport's commentator mention adrenaline pumping, as they must have, they do not wonder, as any scientific person would, what such things mean. Riding the Grand National winner and scoring the winning goal for England have both been reported on TV by the only observers we have to be "better than sex". Sex being an activity anti-IDers can only consider as copulation.

The affects of psychosomatic states, and religious ceremonies and contemplation cause them to be altered, have a direct influence on health and happiness. Even winning the Superbowl causes a rosy glow in a large district of highly intelligent sophisticates none of whom took part in the kicking and biting.

There is a vast range of drugs used to try to get at the positive affects artificially and doses can be mild, as with caffeine or ceremonies of self importance such as school board members no doubt experience, or strong as with mainlining or winning a primary.

The "feelgood factor" and its connection to general tone and health is a most important consideration.

Some people have difficulties with it. They can't watch a 5-day Test Match and feel good about it. They think they are wasting their lives. In the end they can't actually watch anything as they are all over everything they see with their opinions and other simplistic crap and they wind up listening to themselves spouting and seeing nothing.

Meanwhile, in the Mission Halls and Cathedrals others are having a high old time singing and swaying and praying because the Holy Father knows that the best way, the cheapest and least harmful, to give them a shot of "feelgood" in the main arteries is His way, tried and tested over centuries and honed to perfection and when the IDjits emerge into the sunshine in their best bibs and tuckers, with the virgins looking like flowers in a spring meadow, they cut deals and carve up the real estate and the anti-IDer sits glumly in his computer room searching out some drivel about some far away school board's machinations, the important details of which are covered in heavy snow, which has voted 4-3 for what he thinks to be right and he is fulfilled. If they vote the other way he ignores them and looks for one of the other 15,000 which reassures him.
0 Replies
 
raprap
 
  1  
Thu 7 Feb, 2008 08:12 am
Francis wrote:
For those interested, I had fun reading this:

The Evolution of Man Scientifically Disproved


When I read the nomograph, I came to realize that creationism's "evolution" since 1925--or 1899 for that matter, has been largely semantic. On the other hand "natural science" has made enormous bounds that have resulted in technological improvements to everyday health, comfort and safety.

The only thing that has changed, is that some of the faithful is presently attempting to circumvent the establishment clause by declaring 'natural science' is a religion. If they win this battle, my greatest fear is the consequence of this faith based Lysenkoism.

As for teaching ID in school, I'm all for it---to the faithful in Sunday School and Church Camps.

Rap
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Thu 7 Feb, 2008 08:52 am
Had you kept up on the thread rap you would know that I have explained, and at some length, that ID is not, I don't like using NOT for fear you might think I'm insulting your intelligence: it is not teachable. It is an ambience from which mental states grow just like your diet is an ambience by which your body grows. It is not a subject. It is a way of life.

It enters in schools through the teaching profession and the choices they make and those of their supervisors and the effect of these choices on the kids. Nobody is forcing anything. It flows from one generation to the next adapting as it goes.

The sort of individual depicted in your avvie is most unlikely to be allowed anywhere near such a process.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Thu 7 Feb, 2008 09:28 am
Spendi is correct that ID cannot be taught because it is understood and/or experienced individually by almost as many people as there are believers who number into the billions. A rationale for it can be taught such as that as understood by Plato and Aristotle who significantly preceded the Christian era, but who seem to now be so despised by the anti-IDers. Plato and Aristotle also offered differing concepts of ID while it is difficult to fault the reasoning of either. I'm sure that my understanding would differ from Spendi or RealLife or any of the other pro-IDers, but because the understanding of ID is so expansive and shows us so much of what we don't know as well as what we can know, we each could see it quite differently and could each still be quite right.

In comparison, Darwin is a much narrower and more focused subject and therefore can be tested and/or falsified scientifically and qualifies as science. ID is not narrowly focused and cannot be tested and/or falsified scientifically and therefore is not 'science' as we define science and should not be taught as science.

The philosophical controversy remains that anti-IDers narrow their understanding to what they can explain and close their minds to, sometimes even hold in contempt, much that they cannot explain. Most IDers can fully embrace Darwin as science and reality AND embrace ID within which Darwin peacefully exists.

Most IDers do not want ID/Creationism taught as science in science class. Most IDers do not approve of the very few people who do want Creationism taught as science.

The vast majority of IDers, at least those in the modern world, and all anti-IDers do want Darwin taught in science class.

I believe the vast majority if not ALL IDers do not want science class to dismiss ID as invalid, implausible, or impossible.

Policies that allow for all these concerns to be accommodated is the only way to go to cool the fires and get on with the business of teaching kids science.

And that is where the debate should be.
0 Replies
 
wandeljw
 
  1  
Thu 7 Feb, 2008 09:46 am
FLORIDA UPDATE

Quote:
Board Forgoes Vote On Evolution Resolution
(By Marc Valero, Highlands Today, February 7, 2008)

Scientists, professors, parents and a student apparently convinced the members of the School Board of Highlands County that their individual beliefs should not collectively affect their decision as a board on the issue of teaching evolution.

Board members had stated their opposition to a portion of the proposed new state science standards, which state that evolution is the fundamental concept underlying all of biology. The board members said recently that evolution should be taught as a theory, not as fact.

At Tuesday's school board meeting, the board was scheduled to consider a resolution calling for the presentation of other theories of life in the study of science.

The board took no action on the resolution and did not discuss it after 10 people spoke - all in support of the teaching of evolution and in opposition of the proposed resolution.

"Evolution is the foundational theory of modern biology," said Patrick Bohlen, director of the MacArthur Agro-ecology Research Center, a division of Archbold Biological Station.

Quoting a great geneticist, Bohlen said, "nothing in biology makes any sense without it."

Perhaps the board is poorly informed on the difference between a scientific theory and fact, he said. A scientific theory is science's best understanding and best model of how nature works. Facts either support or do not support a theory.

"In the case of evolution, it is one of our best supported theories in terms of how the facts support that," Bohlen said. "I strongly and respectfully urge the honorable members of the board to support the newly proposed state science standards that finally, after many years, include evolution, the foundational theory of all modern biology."

The original resolution the school board considered states, "the State Board of Education is urged strongly to direct the Florida Department of Education to revise the new Sunshine State Standards for Science such that the "Big Bang" theory and evolution shall be presented only as two of several theories in the study of science."

School Board Chairman J. Ned Hancock suggested an alternative resolution, which was prepared shortly before Tuesday's meeting, that stated, "the board urges the State Board of Education to direct the Florida Department of Education to revise the new Sunshine State Standards for Science to allow for balanced, objective and intellectually open instruction in regard to evolution, teaching the scientific strengths and weaknesses of the theory rather than teaching evolution as dogmatic fact."

James Broen said he has a Ph.D. in microbiology and is a parent of three students in the school district.

"There is a lot of distortion, misrepresentation and misinformation about science and biology circulating about this community and apparently it permeates this board to some degree," he said. "Clearly there is a deficiency in science literacy and it would be a shame to see it perpetuate with students in this county."

The evolution of all organisms that live on earth today from ancestors that lived in the past is at the core of many science disciplines, Broen said.

Concerning the proposed resolution and the teaching of alternative theories, he asked the board, "what theories are you advocating being presented in the scientific curriculum?"

After a pause, Hancock replied, "I don't think you are going to get that answer."

Broen said, "since the resolution states there are other theories to be presented to the student, yet the board members have failed to produce them, then it seems this resolution must be discarded."

Elizabeth Broen said she now teaches at the college level, but was a teacher with the school district for five years. Evolution is a critical component of both the standard level and higher level International Baccalaureate biology course, she said. An I.B. document states, "students will learn why evolution is the fundamental concept that underlies all life sciences and it contributes to advances in medicine, public health and conservation."

The school district is considering starting an I.B. diploma program.

Religious beliefs, or the lack of them, should be respected and even discussed in public schools, Elizabeth Broen said, it is not however an appropriate topic for the science classroom.

Hill-Gustat Middle School student Kelly Broen said when she attended summer science camp for gifted students at Purdue University it was expected that the students already learned the basic concepts of evolution.

"I hope to enter a field of science when I'm older and so I need the best science education possible," she said, "so I only hope you will allow the theory of evolution to become prominent in our classes."

Other speakers who opposed the board's position included: senior research biologist Mark Deyrup and associate research biologist Reed Bowman, both of Archbold Biological Station and South Florida Community College professors Bill Gregory and Chris McConnell, who is also a medical doctor.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Thu 7 Feb, 2008 10:05 am
Foxy wrote-

Quote:
and get on with the business of teaching kids science.

And that is where the debate should be.


And that is where the debate should be.

Quote:
ID is not narrowly focused and cannot be tested and/or falsified scientifically and therefore is not 'science' as we define science and should not be taught as science.


It can be tested in terms of the psychosomatic benefits or otherwise. If it should prove beneficial who on earth is going to sit there being "right" scientifically and missing out on it.

What is "consumer confidence" scientifically? What is "market sentiment"?

If all atheists were cleared out of the secondary educational establishment, like they were cleared out of the starting field for the White House Handicap Stakes, science teaching would suffer not one jot of damage and even evolution science could then be looked into.

These school boards seem to take no account of the "how" a subject is taught or the usefulness of the "how" in the adult life of the student. And that is despite the obvious fact that certain schools have certain reputations precisely because of that "how" which they maintain through teacher selection.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Thu 7 Feb, 2008 10:40 am
spendius wrote:
Foxy wrote-

Quote:
and get on with the business of teaching kids science.

And that is where the debate should be.


And that is where the debate should be.

Quote:
ID is not narrowly focused and cannot be tested and/or falsified scientifically and therefore is not 'science' as we define science and should not be taught as science.


It can be tested in terms of the psychosomatic benefits or otherwise. If it should prove beneficial who on earth is going to sit there being "right" scientifically and missing out on it.

What is "consumer confidence" scientifically? What is "market sentiment"?

If all atheists were cleared out of the secondary educational establishment, like they were cleared out of the starting field for the White House Handicap Stakes, science teaching would suffer not one jot of damage and even evolution science could then be looked into.

These school boards seem to take no account of the "how" a subject is taught or the usefulness of the "how" in the adult life of the student. And that is despite the obvious fact that certain schools have certain reputations precisely because of that "how" which they maintain through teacher selection.


That is the problem right there. The idea that 'how a subject is taught' makes no difference. It would be the anti-IDers and science-loving IDers who would be petitioning and infiltrating school boards like crazy if science teachers were teaching against Darwin or inserting their personal opinion that Darwin could possibly be all wrong. More especially they would do this if they were inserting their personal opinion that Creatism is the only valid reality.

The anti-IDers don't want to acknowledge this however. They apparently have no problem with Atheism being implied within the science curriculum, but they religiously defend the doctrine that the science class cannot even acknowledge ID, much less leave open a door for it as a concept believed by billions.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Thu 7 Feb, 2008 10:41 am
Now how much valuable time and resource was wasted on this entire tempest? All because the State Board of ED is populated by a majority who are Evangelicals. The viewpoints of these religious zealots, while we allow them their "free expression" must not be allowedto have free access to infiltration of the school curricula .
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Thu 7 Feb, 2008 10:45 am
farmerman wrote:
Now how much valuable time and resource was wasted on this entire tempest? All because the State Board of ED is populated by a majority who are Evangelicals. The viewpoints of these religious zealots, while we allow them their "free expression" must not be allowedto have free access to infiltration of the school curricula .


Nor should those anti-religionists who would destroy a child's faith.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Thu 7 Feb, 2008 10:51 am
Quote:
It can be tested in terms of the psychosomatic benefits or otherwise. If it should prove beneficial who on earth is going to sit there being "right" scientifically and missing out on it.
. Thats claptrap as usual. If you can come up with a metric, do so, dont sit on your haunches and prattle about what is or isnt (In your less than humble opinion). I continue to assert that you have no idea in hell what youre even talking about in most subjects that require creative analyses.
Quote:
but they religiously defend the doctrine that the science class cannot even acknowledge ID, much less leave open a door for it as a concept believed by billions
Billions cannot correctly find Austria on a map, does that mean we should leave the darkness prevail?. We can acknowledge ID as just one more of the baseless religious worldviews that have no place in objective science. Is that ok with you?
If theres no evidence (Caring not a jot about your "experience equals evidence" garbage) then its not worth the time. I have no problem in teaching anything about ID if there were one sliver of evidence. You guys cannot squirm around that simple fact. You(foxy) try to slice the bounds of acceptability, and spendi tries his damndest to avert our eyes. Neither has made any headway. JUST come up with some evidence. If you could have, Im sure that wed have heard about it by now dont you think?
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Thu 7 Feb, 2008 10:56 am
Quote:
Nor should those anti-religionists who would destroy a child's faith.



You always have the option to start a Charter school and then you can teach all the faith based science and mumbo jumbo you want. ME, I want the public schools to freely teach science unencumbered by anyones "faith". Is that too m uch to ask?
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Thu 7 Feb, 2008 12:32 pm
fm wrote-

Quote:
You always have the option to start a Charter school and then you can teach all the faith based science and mumbo jumbo you want. ME, I want the public schools to freely teach science unencumbered by anyones "faith". Is that too m uch to ask?


Not if asking that pigs might fly is not too much to ask. What you want fm are teaching machines which were tried but proved a dismal failure.

How can you put a teacher into a classroom for a year or two without his or her "faith" being an ingredient.

Quote:
It can be tested in terms of the psychosomatic benefits or otherwise. If it should prove beneficial who on earth is going to sit there being "right" scientifically and missing out on it.
.

Thats claptrap as usual. If you can come up with a metric, do so, dont sit on your haunches and prattle about what is or isnt (In your less than humble opinion). I continue to assert that you have no idea in hell what youre even talking about in most subjects that require creative analyses.


That response is the authentic sound of an ostrich with its head in the sand trying to communicate as best it can under the circumstances.

It means about as much which is why I have drawn the comparison.

There are hundreds of pages of search results on Google, maybe thousands, concerning the metric. And a literature you'll never get through in ten lifetimes.

Don't be see bloody silly fm. Why do you continually trade in baseless assertions. I feel sure that the "undecided" on here are not at all impressed.

I have mentioned a known and scientifically measured proneness to accident due to psychological states of mind. That should be enough for you to find the metric for yourself. It is over 100 years since suicide, a rough measure of depression generally just as divorce rates are a measure of marital breakdown generally, was shown to be linked to psychological factors.

Education is about creating adult mental states which the nation can use to its advantage. Science teaching is a minor matter. Those students suited to science will arise naturally. And it isn't even in their interest to have everybody doing it.

It might help fm if you read my posts properly instead of merely running your eyes over them looking for opportunities to blurt stupid assertions.

The whole industry of beauty products is based on the mental states they create and it is based on nothing else.
0 Replies
 
mesquite
 
  1  
Thu 7 Feb, 2008 02:17 pm
spendius wrote:
fm wrote-

Quote:
You always have the option to start a Charter school and then you can teach all the faith based science and mumbo jumbo you want. ME, I want the public schools to freely teach science unencumbered by anyones "faith". Is that too m uch to ask?


Not if asking that pigs might fly is not too much to ask. What you want fm are teaching machines which were tried but proved a dismal failure.

How can you put a teacher into a classroom for a year or two without his or her "faith" being an ingredient.

If a teacher is so encumbered by their faith as to be unable to objectively teach evolution, then said teacher should be teaching some other subject.

That is no different than to say that if a teacher does not put value in usage of proper grammar and spelling, then said teacher is likely not a good candidate for teaching English.

No matter the subject, if a teacher does not fully understand and embrace the subject, the students are the ones shorted
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Thu 7 Feb, 2008 02:49 pm
farmerman wrote:
Quote:
Nor should those anti-religionists who would destroy a child's faith.



You always have the option to start a Charter school and then you can teach all the faith based science and mumbo jumbo you want. ME, I want the public schools to freely teach science unencumbered by anyones "faith". Is that too m uch to ask?


Well my charter school would certainly include reading comprehension so that people reading "nor should those anti-religionist who would destroy a child's faith" will not be read as 'wanting to teach all the faith based science and mumbo jumbo that I want", most especially when it has already repeatedly been said that this isn't what we want. You really hope that teachers already would have that ability.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 08/20/2025 at 09:07:14