Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,581 Year: 2,838/9,624 Month: 683/1,588 Week: 89/229 Day: 61/28 Hour: 3/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A Plea to understanding: SCIENCE vs INTELLIGENT DESIGN
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17815
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.1


(3)
Message 3 of 230 (653700)
02-23-2012 4:34 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by jchardy
02-23-2012 2:44 PM


Real understanding must be based on a knowledge of the ID movement, it's history and purposes.
As revealed by the Wedge Document the purpose of the ID movement is to make the scientific curriculum more in line with theistic belief. The very fact of targeting education prior to actually doing the scientific research that would justify the teaching is a strong indication that ID is about promoting religious belief and not science.
The majority of the leaders of the ID movement seem to be Old Earth Creationists - but there are Young Earth Creationists among their ranks. They are NOT shunned by the ID movement at all, and to claim otherwise would be a lie.
Let us not forget that the ID text book "Of Panda's and People" was a creationist text book, rewritten to use "Intelligent Design" in place of "creation".
So let us be clear. ID is religious, and - even though not all ID supporters are creationists - creationism is an integral part of it.
ID is primarily about influencing education, seeking to disrupt the teaching of evolution. A position that is mainly motivated by religious objections.
Anybody who ignores these points does not understand ID.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by jchardy, posted 02-23-2012 2:44 PM jchardy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by jchardy, posted 03-02-2012 8:09 PM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17815
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 132 of 230 (654772)
03-04-2012 4:16 AM
Reply to: Message 122 by jchardy
03-02-2012 8:09 PM


Re: APPOLOGY FOR BEING TARDY
Aside from the formatting issues, which make the post quite hard to read, the content is also unclear.
You seem to simultaneously hold that those on the science side are wrong to oppose the ID movement and that what the ID movement is seeking to accomplish is wrong and should be opposed.
Might I suggest, that if you truly wish for a fresh start, you and people like you should distance yourself from the toxic ID movement ? Find another term to replace ID for your use. Cease to defend the ID movement, as you do in the OP - which reads more as a demand that the opponents of the ID movement should surrender, cease to point put the facts about the ID movement, and allow the corruption of science education to proceed unhindered.
I also feel that your call for a scientific study of Faith is not something that would be welcomed by many of the Faithful - who are more likely to see it as a further attack on their beliefs (and with some cause). It seems more likely to cause further conflict than anything.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by jchardy, posted 03-02-2012 8:09 PM jchardy has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024