Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Your experience outweighs my present knowledge from secondary sources but not my future possible knowledge if I took the trouble.

It's a religion. There is no science to it. I could equally propose a theory stating that there is an invisible pink unicorn with disc brakes, an inbuilt microwave and surround sound speakers and call it a scientific theory.

It's a religion. There is no science to it.

Then do so. What are your theory's predictions and how are they falsifiable?

That post merely shows your ignorance of what real science is and how it works. However, its not a condition that cannot be remedied. All it takes is a little discipline to learn and some effort to read.

aperson wrote:
It's a religion. There is no science to it. I could equally propose a theory stating that there is an invisible pink unicorn with disc brakes, an inbuilt microwave and surround sound speakers and call it a scientific theory.


Then do so. What are your theory's predictions and how are they falsifiable?

I think you and Shira (Troll Food), are misinterpreting APerson's post.

I could be wrong, but I think APerson is saying that *ID* is not science (which is something we already knew). He's not saying *evolution* is not science.

Also, others must be able to repeat it to validate the theory.

Seeing the world, as the barkers for foreign travel say, is a hopeless way of actually seeing it.

In fact fm asserts that it is up there all the time and what fm asserts is a scientific fact because he's a scientist and they are always right.

my arse is not tight

I see how Mathos has been handing you an education from his trips to the far EAst. Hes told you everything that YOU know about the subject, not everything HE knows.

The Arizona Daily Star
Published: 06.25.2008

Bill sneaks religion into schools
By Gilbert Shapiro
SPECIAL TO THE ARIZONA DAILY STAR
On June 18, preliminary approval was given by state senators to House Bill 2713 relating to religious liberties in public education. Passed in the House, it still requires a final Senate vote before going to the governor's desk.
The Center for Inquiry Community of Southern Arizona opposes this bill because it is a transparent attempt by conservative Christian groups to get their theology into our public schools. It is a classic "wedge strategy/Trojan horse" type of initiative, consistent with the approaches used to teach creationism. It will allow Christians to evangelize and proselytize.
In addition to making many uncomfortable and distracting from the educational process, it will also lead to time-consuming and expensive litigation in our courts.
Public-school-system children, parents, teachers and administrators should not be held hostage to competing, conflicting and extreme religious dogmas. Imagine the shouting matches (and worse) that would occur between groups that are each convinced that only their moral, ethical, historical and "scientific" viewpoints are correct.
Indeed, students who claimed that only their holy book was accurate in these areas would be immune from criticism. The "Only one truth" assertion followed closely by the "Let's be fair" and "Teach the controversy" ploys do not work in the more objective realms of history and science.
In other classes however, such as creative writing, essays reflecting religious or secular inspirations or affirmations should never be penalized. Teachers and administrators must develop and follow guidelines that are sensitive to students who hold strong religious or secular commitments.
According to the bill, there is the potential for "non-protected" religious activities ?- which violate the principle of state and church separation ?- to occur at any time during the school day.
A public school is a microcosm of our larger society, which is governed by a secular Constitution that takes a neutral position on religion. Parents who want their children to engage in faith-based activities during the school day have the right to send them to the religious schools of their choosing.
A public school is no place for religious expression. Since each faith, by definition, asserts that it alone speaks the truth about reality and morality, public expressions of such assertions would most assuredly open a Pandora's box of conflict and hostility.
Imagine children handing out flyers or wearing T-shirts that say non-believers "are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good" (Psalm 14:1); that homosexuals "shall surely be put to death" (Leviticus 20:13) or "death to infidels" ?- a slogan supported by the Quran.
Similarly, a public school should not be a place for secular expressions that may be inflammatory. Gay students and their supporters should not be allowed to, in like fashion, incite the sensibilities of fellow classmates who have strong opinions regarding sexual orientation. A T-shirt saying, "Evolution is a fact … get used to it!" should be prohibited.
While religious beliefs are no different from other world views that deserve to be aired, discussed and openly debated in the public arena, the public school system should be off-limits to such activities.
Children, especially in the lower grades, should not be introduced to theologies that they are too immature emotionally and too unsophisticated intellectually to understand. They can receive their religious exposure ?- as intended by our federal Constitution ?- in their home and in houses of worship.
What is needed in lieu of this ridiculous bill is a public-school curriculum that emphasizes common human decencies while allowing and respecting the right to be different.
The Center for Inquiry Community of Southern Arizona encourages opposition to this counterproductive bill.

Re: the June 25 guest opinion "Bill sneaks religion into schools" by Gilbert Shapiro.
As written, the bill would allow any student's religious beliefs to supercede Arizona standards for education.
As an example, one of the standards seventh-graders are required to master is knowledge of the rock and fossil record, and geologic time.
If the bill becomes law, a student could write about his/her religious beliefs regarding the rock and fossil record and teachers would be required to grade the student on how well the student's religious beliefs were expressed rather than on whether or not the student mastered the state standard.
Furthermore, teachers could be sued for not deferring to the student's religious beliefs. The state measures student progress by assessing how well they learn state standards. How will that happen if students can opt out of learning due to religious beliefs?
Martin Wiggins
Middle school science teacher, Tucson