|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,902 Year: 4,159/9,624 Month: 1,030/974 Week: 357/286 Day: 13/65 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: 20 years of the Creation/ID science curriculum | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNosy Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: |
So no more posts for two days.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
Ray writes: You are ignorant. LOL, Ray. I see you respond to me the same way you respond to the creo wiki guys who bent over backwards to help you on you 'fantastic paper to rock the foundations of evolution (not in press )'. i.e. getting cross and calling them ignorant or "intellectual midgets". You are such a card, Ray. You know, I bet Gene Scott is having a right old laugh at your silly antics (if he knew who you were). Edited by Larni, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4928 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
The first amendment of the Constitution of the United States, written by Thomas Jefferson himself, a Deist, and signed by 39 of our other Founding Fathers, also Deist or Christian, expressly forbids the interference of the Church into matters of the state. You sure about that? Can you show where the 1st amendment states that because it clearly does not? The idea is the state cannot interfere with matters of the Church, not the other way around. Also, Jefferson did not write the Bill of Rights. Madison did.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22504 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
The interpretation of the 1st ammendment would be a great topic for a new thread.
--Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
FliesOnly Member (Idle past 4174 days) Posts: 797 From: Michigan Joined: |
CFO writes: You do realize that in consecutive sentences, you completely contradict your self...yes? First you say the above nonsense. And next you say...
Federal Judges, who are evolutionists, have made the Constitution say that Creationism cannot be taught to school children.CFO writes: So which is it, CFO? Which delusional rant do you want to claim as being accurate? Of course the Constitution says no such thing since it was written by Theists and Deists in the 18th century. Interestingly enough...if we read only a portion of your second sentence, we get the first factual tidbit that you have said thus far in this particular discussion.CFO writes: If only you would have stopped there. Of course the Constitution says no such thing... And I was serious earlier, when I said that you need to seek help. You appear ready to snap, and I do fear for your safety and for the safety of those around you when it happens. Get some professional help. Edited by FliesOnly, : to fix the subtitle
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
reiverix Member (Idle past 5848 days) Posts: 80 From: Central Ohio Joined: |
Ray, instead of spitting venom at everyone who disagrees with you (which seems to be your trademark btw), why not answer my question when you get back.
reiverix writes:
It was you that mentioned teaching religion in school would return science to its former glory. If you can demonstrate that is true in the past, maybe you can show how it will be true in the future.
I asked for past inventions/discoveries that were made by inspiration of god. Forget about Darwinism for a minute if that's possible. Just show me these great god given achievements.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Beretta Member (Idle past 5626 days) Posts: 422 From: South Africa Joined: |
for ID to be considered science, the definition of scientific theory had to be changed Yes it must be changed so that material causes are not the only ones allowed to be considered.If 'matter is all there is' that would be fine, but we don't know that for a fact and some things are better explained by non-material causes. In other words if purely natural mechanisms produced life on this planet then great but if there's evidence to say that that may not be so, then limiting what is allowed to be defined as science to natural causes may shut out the real cause -thus the truth of what actually happened to produce life on the planet may be excluded by what is currently accepted as the definition of science. As an analogy, imagine you have to hypothesize on how computers came to exist but you are not allowed to mention man -you are limited to only those processes that occur within a computer -the correct answer is thus excluded a priori. Id proposes that natural causes may not be the only explanation possible for life on this earth but it does not attempt to get into who or what the creative intelligence may be because the identity of the designer is not part of science -that would be part of a theological debate.The point is not to exclude the potentially correct answer by limiting the definition of science to material causes and passing it off as fact since it may shut out investigation into the truth of what actually did produce life. Much like the identity of the creator being out of the domain of science, so would things like voodoo and charms be out of the realm of scientific investigation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Trixie Member (Idle past 3735 days) Posts: 1011 From: Edinburgh Joined: |
So, Beretta, you agree that to get ID included as a science, we have to change the definition of what science is. Surely that, in and of itself, admits that, as things stand at the moment, ID most definitely is NOT science. Therefore until the definition of science is changed, ID has no place in the science class.
In changing the definition of science to encompass ID, Michael Behe admitted, in court, under oath, that the definition which he proposes in order to include ID will also include Astrology. Do you believe that Astrology is a scientific theory on par with ID? In 20 years will science teachers be hired based on their star sign? You may not realise it, but that is what you're proposing. Instead of redefining science to include ID, why do IDists not set about gaining scientific credentials for their theory? If it is a science, then that shouldn't be too difficult. If, however, it truly is on par with Astrology, then there may be some problems with scientific research which would support ID, ie it will be non-existent. Idists claim there is much scientific evidence for ID, but when asked to provide examples, they refuse or provide examples which are most definitely NOT scientific. Can you provide any? Can you provide any evidence of ongoing scientific research in the field of ID? I don't want links to opinions, arguments, logical expositions, I want links to the actual, ongoing scientific, laboratory research. Heck, I'm not even asking for published research, just ongoing research. If you can do this, then ID may fnally be making an attempt to prove its claims of being a science. Asking for a redefinition of science is admitting that ID is NOT science!! I'll correct any typos later if I have time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
So what exactly did you mean when you said that, 'we are talking about science and nobody has any intention on changing it to anything else. Get a grip.'?
If a non-material cause 'the intelligent designer' can effect evolution why can't a non-material cause 'lady luck' effect positive benefits to the possessor of a particular object? And why has ID suddenly become concerned with immaterial causes? What happened to the aliens? TTFN, WK
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
FliesOnly Member (Idle past 4174 days) Posts: 797 From: Michigan Joined: |
Hey Beretta...what's up? You ever gonna supply that I.D. hypothesis... like I asked for (most recently) way back in post 113, and you agreed to supply?
Beretta writes: Are you serious? And yet you expect it to be considered a "science"? Please supply us with what you think should be the definition of science.
Yes it must be changed so that material causes are not the only ones allowed to be considered. Beretta writes: Such as?
...and some things are better explained by non-material causes. Beretta writes: But how do you test for this Beretta? Do you not see the hole you are digging for yourself?
...but if there's evidence to say that that may not be so, then limiting what is allowed to be defined as science to natural causes may shut out the real cause -thus the truth of what actually happened to produce life on the planet may be excluded by what is currently accepted as the definition of science. Beretta writes: Your analogy sucks, Beretta, because that is not anywhere near what you're asking for. What you're complaining about as not being fair would be more along the lines of something like this: As an analogy, imagine you have to hypothesize on how computers came to exist but you are not allowed to mention man -you are limited to only those processes that occur within a computer -the correct answer is thus excluded a priori. "imagine you have to hypothesize on how computers came to exist but you are not allowed to mention green fairies riding on the backs of purple unicorns"-you are limited to those things that can be seen and measured and tested for. That's more in line with what your complaint entails.
Beretta writes: Bull shit. But regardless of your ridiculous claim that I.D. doesn't care who the designer is...I.D. is still something for which no test can be designed. Don't you get it, Beretta? Id proposes that natural causes may not be the only explanation possible for life on this earth but it does not attempt to get into who or what the creative intelligence may be because the identity of the designer is not part of science. And it cannot be taken seriously by the scientific community because, amongst other things, it does not have even so much as a testable hypothesis. Which reminds me....we gonna get one from you soon?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Quetzal Member (Idle past 5901 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
Jared Diamond is considered a scientist and he is probably the most respected pro-evolution author in the world today. His degree is in Geography. This is incorrect. Dr. Diamond received his undergrad in physiology (from Harvard) and his PhD in physiology and biophysics (from Cambridge). Most of his work - outside his popular science writings - has been in ecology. He is one of the founders of the field of conservation biology, and has done extensive field work that has significantly enhanced knowledge in such diverse areas of my field as ecological assembly rules, landscape-based ecological design of protected areas, and extinction risk. Although probably best known for his pop sci books, he IS a respected scientist. I wouldn't, however, go so far as to claim he is the "most respected pro-evolution writer". There are quite a number of other authors that could legitimately claim that distinction. Back to your regularly scheduled rants. Edited by Quetzal, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LinearAq Member (Idle past 4705 days) Posts: 598 From: Pocomoke City, MD Joined: |
CFU writes: Neither Dembski or Behe accept ToE. From Michael Behe's own hand:
quote: From TEACHING INTELLIGENT DESIGN -- WHAT HAPPENED WHEN?A RESPONSE TO EUGENIE SCOTT -By William A. Dembski quote:and quote: It looks to me that they both accept macroevolution and microevolution which you say never happened. Perhaps they don't accept TOE as you define it but I am "ignorant" of your strange definition of it. So back to the question at hand.You said that they are most correct because they are most opposed by evolutionists. Does this mean you now believe that macro-evolution and micro-evolution have occurred? Do you now accept common descent through evolutionary mechanisms as the best explanation for the diversity of life on this planet? Or Will you now say that Behe's and Dembski's version of ID is incorrect and unacceptable by you. Looks like I'm not the only one who is ignorant...to say the least. Edited by LinearAq, : make quote more readable
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RickJB Member (Idle past 5019 days) Posts: 917 From: London, UK Joined: |
Beretta writes: things are better explained by non-material causes How can an non-material explanation be verified if it cannot be tested? Imagine that every time I say "f*ck" I'm struck by lightning that has no apparent physical origin. How do I know that the Biblical God did it instead of the Pink Unicorn, the Flying Spaghetti Monster or Zeus?
Beretta writes: As an analogy, imagine you have to hypothesize on how computers came to exist but you are not allowed to mention man. It's not that ID isn't allowed to mention God, it's that ID has no evidence to support such an entity. The existence of men, on the other hand, is verifiable.
Beretta writes: ..it may shut out investigation into the truth of what actually did produce life. How do we verify "the truth" when it has no material expression?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2199 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
Wait, you don't accept that new species have been observed to emerge? Even though they have been directly observed to have done so in real time, both in the lab and in the field? quote: Obviously, this is an avoidant non-answer. When you get back from suspension, how about answering the question?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2199 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: So should we teach, in science class, that Astrology is valid? Or that poltergeists really move things in houses?
quote: Can you please provide some examples of how non-material explanations of anything has increased our understanding of it?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024