Intelligent Design Theory Solution

there's not such thing as gravity, it's now called intelligent falling

Is there any real functional worth to evolution?

... why not just teach both?

Is there any real functional worth to evolution? If not, then why not just teach both?

Quote:

there's not such thing as gravity, it's now called intelligent falling

That is a poor attack at creationists...

Because the process of science has value, as demonstrated by the very existance of our present civilization. So it's important to teach the process of science clearly and accurately so that we can continue to make cultural progress, prevent pandemics (before it's too late), and increase food production for the swelling population.

Absolutely, but then it's difficult to reach down to the reasoning capacity of religionists.

Quote:

Absolutely, but then it's difficult to reach down to the reasoning capacity of religionists.

Religion has nothing to do with it..........THERE ARE SCIENTISTS WHO HAVE COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT RANDOM NATURAL PROCESSES CANNOT EXPLAIN OUR EXISTENCE.......SCIENCE........NOT RELIGION

Science that we can use to advance is functional, I'm just not clear on how you think that guesses about our past can be functional.

Quote:

Absolutely, but then it's difficult to reach down to the reasoning capacity of religionists.

Religion has nothing to do with it..........THERE ARE SCIENTISTS WHO HAVE COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT RANDOM NATURAL PROCESSES CANNOT EXPLAIN OUR EXISTENCE.......SCIENCE........NOT RELIGION

THERE ARE SCIENTISTS WHO HAVE COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT RANDOM NATURAL PROCESSES CANNOT EXPLAIN OUR EXISTENCE

Is there any real functional worth to evolution? If not, then why not just teach both?

And no I'm not being stupidly flippant. I'm serious. ID is definitely a cultural issue and it should be acknowledged. But it shouldn't be confused with science.

real life wrote:

Your earlier post stated you felt I should try to convince you that this was worth your time.

Sorry, I didn't mean that you should *try* to convince me, rather that you *hadn't* convinced me (and probably couldn't). Your posts don't contain much scientific substance, and your recite standard creationist dogma which has been dealt with and dismissed many many times before.

Here's why I find ID absurd. ID says, as I understand it, that all of the observations and inferences that have been made that have lead to evolution have not actually been made because there's a man behind a curtain making all of the changes and fooling us into believing in evolution.

WTF?

that have lead to evolution

Here's why I find ID absurd. ID says, as I understand it, that all of the observations and inferences that have been made that have lead to evolution have not actually been made because there's a man behind a curtain making all of the changes and fooling us into believing in evolution.

WTF?

thunder_runner32 wrote:

THERE ARE SCIENTISTS WHO HAVE COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT RANDOM NATURAL PROCESSES CANNOT EXPLAIN OUR EXISTENCE

So you believe those scientists, but you don't believe the vast majority of scientists who have come to the opposite conclusion. I wonder why?

DrewDad wrote:

Here's why I find ID absurd. ID says, as I understand it, that all of the observations and inferences that have been made that have lead to evolution have not actually been made because there's a man behind a curtain making all of the changes and fooling us into believing in evolution.

WTF?

Inferences, yes. Observations of evolution taking place........ah, no.

Quote:

that have lead to evolution

You are attempting to prove your point by assuming your point has validity.

My faith can support some form of initial creation. But not constant tweaking. I just can't take the view of God as a kid sitting next to an ant hill poking it with a stick occasionally.