If I had my druthers, science classes should have the freedom to apply all of the evidence supportive to ID, including that evidence which conventional science disallows.
When you start watering down science, where do you draw the line?
You apparently want to redraw the line such that science education will include magic, superstition, wishful thinking, old wives tales, folklore, what the stars foretell and what the neighbors think, omens, public opinion, astromancy, spells, Ouija boards, anecdotes, Da Vinci codes, tarot cards, sorcery, seances, sore bunions, black cats, divine revelation, table tipping, witch doctors, crystals and crystal balls, numerology, divination, faith healing, miracles, palm reading, the unguessable verdict of history, tea leaves, new age mumbo-jumbo, hoodoo, voodoo and all that other weird stuff.
No thanks.
This follows through in the field of education. In the science departments, one must follow the secular line for employment. Thus the evidence for ID is never known by the young impressional empty minds waiting to be filled with knowledge. They graduate with their minds programmed by the assembly line of secularism.
In the science departments students are expected to learn science. If they want to learn religion and other such subjects, shouldn't they be elsewhere?
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
If I had my druthers, science classes should have the freedom to apply all of the evidence supportive to ID, including that evidence which conventional science disallows.
Then you wouldn't be teaching science, would you?
A number of years ago, here at EvC I debated the highly esteemed physicist member, Eta Carena on what if the sun were relatively suddenly created?. My argument was that if the sun were relatively suddenly created as per the Biblical record, it would appear to be over 30 million years old because, as I understand, it takes that long for the average protostar to become a full fledged star.
Yeah, Eta didn't need to refute that point. He was just pointing out that the age the sun displays now is unnecessary to have the sun do what it needed to do then, which implies omphalistic deception. But anyone interested in that ancient argument is free to go back to see for themselves A young sun - a response.
If you want an objective debate between secularists and Biblical creationists but you disallow any evidence not physical/natural, you kill the debate. Thus the scientifially astute creationists who show up don't stay long.
But in the Intelligent Design Forum - we are meant to be exploring the natural evidence that supports the intelligent design hypothesis. I agree that there is no debate, but some ID proponents think there is, so here they come to display it. If you want to debate with supernatural evidence you need to go to the Theological Creationism and ID forum.
(In the Eta debate, he even granted a supernatural creation of the star and still argued the evidence shows this must have occurred way before 7,000 years ago without pure omphalism)
This follows through in the field of education. In the science departments, one must follow the secular line for employment.
A wise decision on the part of your courts. Did you know some of my taxes go towards paying for children to be brainwashed with Islamic propaganda?
Thus the evidence for ID is never known by the young impressional empty minds waiting to be filled with knowledge.
Good point. If only there was some institution out there, open to children, where there was freedom to discuss the evidence for ID and Yahweh and the golden cities of paradise.
They graduate with their minds programmed by the assembly line of secularism.
Damn those assembly line mind programming programs of the secular elite!
Unfortunately those evil evolutionists make children chant passages from the Origin of Species and to trust Dawkins' every syllable and the lack of proselytizing from the quiet, meek humble silent majority of good Christians means they are overwhelmed.
quote:
If I had my druthers, science classes should have the freedom to apply all of the evidence supportive to ID, including that evidence which conventional science disallows.
In other words the criteria for the inclusion in science class would be "Buzsaw likes it" - regardless of whether the item in question was true or not. It's a very good thing that you are not in charge of education, to keep your falsehoods and misrepresentations out of the system.
quote:
The ID hypothesis, especially that of the Biblical record must debate with half our brains/evidence quietly hid behind our backs.
By which you mean - for example - having to stick to what the Bible actually says rather than what you want to pretend that it says.
quote:
A number of years ago, here at EvC I debated the highly esteemed physicist member, Eta Carena on what if the sun were relatively suddenly created?. My argument was that if the sun were relatively suddenly created as per the Biblical record, it would appear to be over 30 million years old because, as I understand, it takes that long for the average protostar to become a full fledged star.
Nobody here will be the slightest bit surprised to find out that this is not true. Eta Carinae repeatedly pointed out that there were age indicators that you were not considering (some are listed in Message 228).
If I had my druthers, science classes should have the freedom to apply all of the evidence supportive to ID, including that evidence which conventional science disallows.
As Coyote and Modulous noted, but then it wouldn't be science anymore, would it.
The Opening Post of this thread is excellent and well worth a read. It provides three examples of theories that took time to gain acceptance within the scientific community: continental drift, dark matter, and mitochondrial origins. Acceptance was gained by doing more and more research and gathering more and more evidence and publishing that evidence in more and more scientific papers in the scientific literature.
Approaches to gaining acceptance that were notable by their absence:
They did not lobby school boards and legislatures to teach their theories in public schools.
They did not conspire and plan ways to change public perception of their theory.
They did not hold seminars and debates to promote their theory to the public.
Intelligent Design is not science. If it were science you wouldn't be forced to propose changes to the definition of science so that it could squeeze in.
I could claim my cats are dogs and that it's just bias and pigheadedness that has caused the definition of dog to exclude my cats. And I could keep saying it over and over again in thread after thread while ignoring all the patient explanations for how wrongheaded this would be, each time bringing it up as if it had never been discussed before and telling myself that there must really be something true about what I'm saying, else why would people still be discussing it after all this time.
If I had my druthers, science classes should have the freedom to apply all of the evidence supportive to ID,
In order to do this ID would need to make predictions and construct falsifiable hypotheses. ID has been incapable of doing this, so there is no way to apply our observations to ID through the scientific method.
By it's nature, ID implicates creationism and creationism implicates a power/energy. existing in the Universe, capable of creating and designing things in the universe.
Wrong. This is what ID proponents believe. They have yet to show that the evidence implies their beliefs because they lack anything approaching a scientifically valid hypothesis.
A number of years ago, here at EvC I debated the highly esteemed physicist member, Eta Carena on what if the sun were relatively suddenly created?. My argument was that if the sun were relatively suddenly created as per the Biblical record, it would appear to be over 30 million years old because, as I understand, it takes that long for the average protostar to become a full fledged star.
Then let's use this as an example of what I am talking about. What evidence, if found, would falsify your proposal? What observations, if made, would falsify the sudden creation hypothesis? If you are incapable of producing the null hypothesis THEN YOU HAVE NO HYPOTHESIS. No hypothesis = no science.
Bottom line: If you want an objective debate between secularists and Biblical creationists but you disallow any evidence not physical/natural, you kill the debate. Thus the scientifially astute creationists who show up don't stay long.
It is creationists that want creationism taught in SCIENCE CLASS. Therefore, the evidence must meet the requirements of science in order to be taught in SCIENCE CLASS. Therefore, evidence must be empirical. Period. If it is not then it is not SCINETIFIC evidence. It really is that simple.
If creationists were calling for creationism to be taught in philosophy class or a religious class of some type then we could adopt the types of evidences or epistemologies that these fields use. However, as long as creationists want creationism taught in science class then we are going to use the scientific criteria.
In the science departments, one must follow the secular line for employment. Thus the evidence for ID is never known by the young impressional empty minds waiting to be filled with knowledge. They graduate with their minds programmed by the assembly line of secularism.
I was under the impression that many kids who attend public schools also attend Sunday school. Last I heard Sunday school is still offered free of charge and is open to any and all.
The problem here is that you want to government to do your evangelizing for you, with tax dollars nonetheless. From my understanding of constitutional law, that isn't allowed.
Then let's use this as an example of what I am talking about. What evidence, if found, would falsify your proposal? What observations, if made, would falsify the sudden creation hypothesis? If you are incapable of producing the null hypothesis THEN YOU HAVE NO HYPOTHESIS. No hypothesis = no science.
Let's ask this a different way: What evidence would cause biblical literalists to admit that the bible is not inerrant?
Not only is there no null hypothesis, fundamentalists who believe in the inerrancy of the bible will exclude any evidence to the contrary.
That's certainly not the same approach taken by Real Science.
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
If I had my druthers, science classes should have the freedom to apply all of the evidence supportive to ID
I don't have a problem with that. You should be able to fit all of that evidence on one blank sheet of paper - and the paper would still be blank after adding all of the evidence.
If I had my druthers, science classes should have the freedom to apply all of the evidence supportive to ID, including that evidence which conventional science disallows.
I look forward to you presenting that evidence as opposed to simply asserting that such evidence exists.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
Volumns would be required to cite all of the evidence supportive to the existence of that entity, alleged to have done it.
I'm not arguing about the evidence to support the entity, I'm talking about the evidence that shows his/her work. That is the important part.
I will give you the benifit of the doubt and say yes, there is a god and it is that of the Bible. There, no evidence required to prove him/her to me any further. God did it...all of it.
Now, how did god do it?
And I won't get greedy, I'll just ask you for one thing god did - Explain how god made an atom?
Not only is there no null hypothesis, fundamentalists who believe in the inerrancy of the bible will exclude any evidence to the contrary.
I don't think "exclude" really describes it. Instead, they suggest that natural laws themselves have changed in the past in order to produce these pieces of evidence. Add in some Last Thursdayism and there you have it.
In the case of ID, it suffers from vagueness and obsfucation. What pattern of homology does ID predict? None. What mixture of features in fossil species does ID predict? None. What type of shared genetic markers does ID predict? None. In order to escape falsification like young earth creationism has suffered they have made ID so vague as to be useless as a scientific pursuit.
(In the Eta debate, he even granted a supernatural creation of the star and still argued the evidence shows this must have occurred way before 7,000 years ago without pure omphalism)
There are a number of important aspects of Intelligent Design that are unique to the Buzsaw position. The Buzsaw position has never been that the Solar System was created a few thousand years ago.
The literal interpretation of day four of Genesis one, when the sun was created is that at some time on day four creation of the sun was created. However, in that it was not completed until the end of day four, it is not known how long days one through four were. The text says that one of the functions of the sun is to determine the 24 hour day. There was another source of light and determination of the length of each day before the work of creating the sun was completed.
I know that this is a unique Buzsaw rendition of the text, but it is more literal to the text than the conventional YEC rendition.
BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future. Time Relates To What Is Temperal. What Is Eternal Is Timeless.
Glad you decided to add to our diversity. We have a wide variety of forums for your debating pleasure.
As members, we are guests on this board and as guests we are asked to put forth our best behavior. Please read the Forum Guidelines carefully and understand the wishes of our host. Familiarize yourself with the various functions of EvC by using the Practice Makes Perfect Forum.
Your first two posts have already violated rule #5 concerning bare links. This is a debate forum. Try to present a viable argument.
He did it over a period of time, expending energy and working. He intelligently fashioned, from the elements, things which he intended to make. When he designed the animals and mankind, for example, he took soil, intelligently assembling the elements into what he wished to make. In that he, having a higher intelligence than that of the creatures which he made, including mankind, he had the knowledge and ability to assemble and fashion the elements into what pleased him to make.
(abe: After he fashioned the body he inflated the lungs with his life giving breath, having properties suitable for initiating life into the fashioned body.)
That his degree of intelligence was greater than that of the creative ability of his creature, mankind, can be compared to the degree of the difference in the intelligence of mankind to the intelligence of, say, a snail and that of mankind. That of mankind is manifold; being greater than that of the snail.
As per 2Lot, this effected a measure of equilibrium of energy, in that after Jehovah had finished the work which he had done, there was the need for him to rest.
The degree of intelligence existing in the entire universe cannot necessarily be determined by that which we humans experience on our tiny speck in the universe which we call Planet Earth.
Edited by Buzsaw, : As noted
BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future. Time Relates To What Is Temperal. What Is Eternal Is Timeless.
™ Version 4.2
(1)
