Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Well this is awkward... Used to be a YEC
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(2)
Message 181 of 358 (646285)
01-04-2012 12:47 AM
Reply to: Message 178 by Buzsaw
01-04-2012 12:15 AM


Re: Unanswered Whys Of Science
The logic, the common sense, the the real here and now observable, the cultural the recorded historical, etc all attest to supportive evidence of an intelligent designer.
Logic can be used to "prove" any number of false things. Don't you remember Ketterling's Law?: "Logic is an organized way of going wrong with confidence."
Common sense tells us that airplanes and bumblebees can't fly. And a great many other falsehoods. Best not to bet the rent money on "common sense," as common sense is far from common.
The "real here and now observable" is the province of science. There is currently no scientific evidence for an intelligent designer. (Did you sleep through the Dover trial?) There are a great many solid scientific explanations for things, including many things once attributed to various deities.
The "cultural [and] the recorded historical" don't show there was an intelligent designer. What they show is beliefs in thousands or millions of deities, and associated beliefs, most of which are contradictory. But that doesn't stop the believers from believing that their particular version of the TRVTH is the one-and-only TRVTH.
If religion was run like science, there would be some method for determining which of these beliefs (if any) was correct. Instead with religions when there are disagreements you get schisms, or in some notable cases, wars and wholesale slaughter.
I've never understood how God could expect His creatures to pick the one true religion by faith - it strikes me as a sloppy way to run a universe.
Robert Heinlein, Stranger in a Strange Land

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by Buzsaw, posted 01-04-2012 12:15 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 182 of 358 (646287)
01-04-2012 12:59 AM
Reply to: Message 147 by Drosophilla
01-03-2012 7:50 AM


Re: Utter rubbish!
To get your ID in the science classrooms it all comes down to one thing:
What REAL WORLD processes for ID can be studied for ID to qualify as a scientific subject qualifying for the scientific method?
Droso, the reason you will never see, Law Order and purpose as real world evidence of the ID process, hereafter referred to as the ToLO&P,is simply because you are making a very fundamental error is your basic reasoning and your approach to evidence and science
Earlier you said that, the SM and theToE studies what can be evidenced. But that is only partly true and this is why
Now pay close attention. The ToE is not just a theory, because a bunch of simpleminded creationist dont understand the word theory, or because it has things it cannot explain in some of its processes, ITS BECAUSE, it cant EVIDENCE the only thing that matters, its conclusion
And yes every investigation, especially one into the natural world, needs a conclusion. No one is faulting it for not doing what it cannot do.
The ToE and the ToLO&P are theories because they both cannot demonstrate thier conclusions. But it doesnt mean either is invalid, unless one of the two ignores its limitations
Once however, it is realized that neither position can demonstrate its conclusion, it becomes abundantly clear that the SM does not have a leg to stand on to demonstrate that the things discovered by the ID camp are anyless useful, than those discovered by the ToE
It should also become abundantly clear that Law, order and purpose are on a equal footing with change, natural selection, survival of the fittest. Because if the ToE is going to stand by its natural conclusion, of soley natural causes. It must must Demonstrate in a logical way why, Law Order and purpose are not established in the same manner
IOWs I need in no uncertain terms and explanations what the ToE or the SM, does different, that would qualify it more than an investigation, like IDs process
Until it is established in some rational form, it should be clear these two processes are on equal footing
The SM needs to abandon its claim of evidenced conclusions, or include investigations that are of the types of the SM
What are you giving back from ID SPECIFICALLY that can be studied. Until you do that ID is nothing but useless words that do not belong in a science class.
It really is that simple !!!
When you understand and can respond to the above points I have made, you will realize that we have already given this information to you thousands of time. But until you understand your error in reasoning, you wont be able to see anything but your process, which is actually the same as IDs
Here is a simple mistake you make. You insist that we start with a conclusion. That is not logically possible. If the investigation we start with, is objective and valid, it follows I cant have already discovered what I am searching for, in a logical rational way. Especially when I cant even evidence the conclusion in the end
Once you stop making this and other fallacious observations and look at the Process we follow, it will present itself as nothing less than a Scientfic investigation or Method
Instead of giving me examples of the SM, show me why the process of investigation is better and more helpful, if you only arrive at tenative conclusions, such as Natural Selection, Change, etc. I could discover any of these things using IDs processes
How do your simple findings enhance an existing investigation, where the only thing that needs to be evidenced cannot and has not been
In essence I am not saying the SM, is not science, Im saying once you remove your prejudices concerning creationism and ID, youll see the ID process as science, using no different terms or ideas that the SM
What Im asking for is a tenet of your process, that is above and beyond another form of investigation and observation, that would make us jump and exclaim, "Well thier process is much different and better"
What might that be
Dawn Bertot
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by Drosophilla, posted 01-03-2012 7:50 AM Drosophilla has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 183 by Coyote, posted 01-04-2012 1:46 AM Dawn Bertot has replied
 Message 185 by Drosophilla, posted 01-04-2012 7:50 AM Dawn Bertot has replied
 Message 189 by herebedragons, posted 01-04-2012 9:07 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(2)
Message 183 of 358 (646289)
01-04-2012 1:46 AM
Reply to: Message 182 by Dawn Bertot
01-04-2012 12:59 AM


Re: Utter rubbish!
Until you can understand science and the scientific method, and how they work, you should really refrain from posting sweeping conclusions about them.
You have so many errors in your post that it's not worth trying to explain them to you. They have been explained to you many times in the past, but you are simply unwilling to learn.
You have shown yourself to be a religious zealot with a closed mind. And as we all know, belief gets in the way of learning.
And that's not something to be proud of.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-04-2012 12:59 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 186 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-04-2012 7:51 AM Coyote has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 184 of 358 (646290)
01-04-2012 1:51 AM
Reply to: Message 173 by Buzsaw
01-03-2012 9:16 PM


Re: Unanswered Whys Of Science
quote:
Like science's reluctance to falsify cited research and evidence of the Exodus crossing?
By which you mean "science's refusal to mount expensive expeditions which will almost certainly find nothing". It doesn't take much of a brain to see through your "evidence"
quote:
Like science's reluctance to any consideration of observable fulfilled ancient Biblical prophecies relative to ID?
Buz, the ID movement tries to pretend that it is NOT religious. If scientists tried to link the ID movement to claims of fulfilled Biblical prophecies the ID movement would scream blue murder.
Besides, you haven't got any good examples of fulfilled Biblical prophecy. Just bits of the Bible you misrepresent so that you can pretend that they have come true, or will come true or even that you only wish would come true.
quote:
Like science's aversion towards asking questions or studies on anything depicting what is considered on tiny planet earth as the supernatural

You mean like your silly claim that the dinosaurs magically turned into snakes ? There are two good reasons that scientists ignore that. Firstly because it is a silly idea that you made up (it doesn't even make sense if you assume creationism and accept a literalistic interpretation of the Bible !) and secondly because the evidence is conclusively against it.
Look Buz, I know you hate science but does it really make sense to continue with this childish vendetta ? So scientists follow the evidence instead of your personal opinions. Is that really something to get upset about ? Is it really a just cause for all the nastiness ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by Buzsaw, posted 01-03-2012 9:16 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Drosophilla
Member (Idle past 3641 days)
Posts: 172
From: Doncaster, yorkshire, UK
Joined: 08-25-2009


(1)
Message 185 of 358 (646308)
01-04-2012 7:50 AM
Reply to: Message 182 by Dawn Bertot
01-04-2012 12:59 AM


Re: Utter rubbish!
OK then let's picture the following scene:
A science classroom with the ToE and ID both on the agenda.
The teacher looks at his watch and says:
"OK students. We have 2 hours and we are going to look at the ToE and ID today. During the first hour we are going to look at the fossil record and the geological strata and refer this to the Linnaean Tree of Life. I would then like you to make some conclusions from this data. Then in the second hour we are going to ************"
The first hour will undoubtedly lead to a conclusion of the ToE from the evidence studied....so what is the teacher doing in the second hour where ID 'fight's back'? Specifically, what are the words the teacher is going to say to the class?
If you want ID in a science class you have to go the whole hog - you can't just dream up your ideal world here on this forum - you need now to instruct the teachers on what they actually have to do with the pupils? What are they going to study? It can't be the material above - because that will inevitably lead to a conclusion that the ToE is correct - you need to provide more evidence to the contrary and this has to be done in a REAL classroom with a REAL teacher.
What is that teacher going to do?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-04-2012 12:59 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 210 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-05-2012 12:34 AM Drosophilla has replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 186 of 358 (646309)
01-04-2012 7:51 AM
Reply to: Message 183 by Coyote
01-04-2012 1:46 AM


Re: Utter rubbish!
You have shown yourself to be a religious zealot with a closed mind. And as we all know, belief gets in the way of learning.
And that's not something to be proud of.
Instead of grandstanding and making speeches, just show me where my errors are and why my beliefs are getting in the way of my thinking.
I believe this is a debate site, correct?
How is this for speeches
"The path is straight and the children are on the straight path. They will see its straighty straigtness, and they will be straightened our"
Robert, Everybody Loves Raymond
Dawn Bertot
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by Coyote, posted 01-04-2012 1:46 AM Coyote has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 191 by Larni, posted 01-04-2012 9:46 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied
 Message 192 by jar, posted 01-04-2012 10:06 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


(1)
Message 187 of 358 (646313)
01-04-2012 8:48 AM
Reply to: Message 179 by Buzsaw
01-04-2012 12:25 AM


Re: Unanswered Whys Of Science
Go to the archives. I've been showing real time observable supportive evidence for over 8 years what secularistic minded scientists ignore. Go read and figure. I can lead you to the water but I can't make you drink.
No Buz he asked for you to show them to him. You always make claims that in the past you provided evidence or showed supernatural phenomena then tell people to look in the archives.
SHOW US. POINT THE EVIDENCE. LINK TO THE EXACT POST OR WEBPAGE.
Why don't you? Because you know you cannot.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 179 by Buzsaw, posted 01-04-2012 12:25 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


(2)
Message 188 of 358 (646314)
01-04-2012 9:05 AM
Reply to: Message 178 by Buzsaw
01-04-2012 12:15 AM


Re: Unanswered Whys Of Science
Studies, studies and more studies, relativity, quantum theory, uniformity assumptions. That's it for science. That's where the money, the peers and the secularism is.
What do you mean "that's it for science"?
Malcolm Gladwell's statistic is that it takes about 10,000 hours of practice to become an expert at something. At the institutions I've attended, a bachelors degree in the sciences requires about 90 credit hours in the sciences, so, approximately 3600 one-hour lecture periods attended plus something on the order of 5 hours in the lab a week for four years. That's just for a bachelors; getting the PhD requires another 600-1200 hours in the classroom plus 30-40 hours a week in the lab for about six years. That's about 12,000 hours of study or more by the time someone leaves the educational system with a PhD in the sciences (usually about 10-11 years after they entered it.)
In all that time, do you think that budding scientists study only "relativity, quantum theory, and uniformity assumptions"? How on Earth could that possibly take 12,000 hours?
Here's a more personal anecdote - last year, my wife graduated with her PhD in entomology; she started college in 1999. Her focus was phylogenetics and molecular systematics, so you can consider her a fairly generic biological scientist. The only time she took any courses that covered relativity or quantum mechanics was her freshman year when she took a fruity seminar called "Concepts of Infinity." Since she doesn't do paleontology, uniformatarianism was never in her curriculum.
As always, Buz, you have no idea what you're even talking about. It's kind of a pattern with you.
The logic, the common sense, the the real here and now observable
Logic is nothing but a word-game; all logical conclusions are, by definition, tautologies. And why would "common sense" ever be right about anything except by accident? Why would the world operate in a way that is common-sensical? We can prove that we live in a quantum universe by observation and experiment; indeed, it was the enduring non-common-sense results of certain kinds of experiments - the two-slit experiment, observations of radiating blackbodies - that prompted the development of quantum theories in the first place. The only way to preserve the primacy of "common sense" as a tool for explaining the universe is purposeful ignorance, a tradition I see you're proud to carry on.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by Buzsaw, posted 01-04-2012 12:15 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 858 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


(1)
Message 189 of 358 (646315)
01-04-2012 9:07 AM
Reply to: Message 182 by Dawn Bertot
01-04-2012 12:59 AM


Re: Utter rubbish!
Hi Dawn.
I for one would like to see ID be taken seriously and be considered a scientific investigation. However, I feel they have fallen flat and failed to produce anything of substance.
First of all, the basic premise of ID is that we can detect design in nature and therefore recognize that there must be a designer. The identity and nature of this designer is not revealed. However, my observation is that creationists have latched onto this idea and see it as a way to bring credibility to their cause. So it has become (or at least perceived as) creationism in disguise. That makes it difficult for me personally to support the movement.
Secondly, I see their work resulting in little more than words. The main tenet of ID, irreducible complexity, has been completely debunked. Part of the problem is that opponents need only demonstrate that a process could arise in a step-wise process not that it actually did evolve in that way to invalidate that a system is irreducibly complex. Step-wise processes have been proposed for the blood clotting pathway, flagellum, the eye, and so on ... So the main tenet of ID falls. What else is there?
So, on one level I agree with you that ID could and maybe should be science and I am sure they do use the SM in some of their investigations. But I would have to agree with the others that it has not lived up to the criteria to be considered legitimate science.
What Im asking for is a tenet of your process, that is above and beyond another form of investigation and observation, that would make us jump and exclaim, "Well thier process is much different and better"
What might that be
It is actually the other way around. The burden of demonstrating that ID is indeed science rests squarely on the shoulders of those claiming it is. Current science is firmly established as "science" and has defined and developed the SM. Now ID comes on the scene and suggests it has a better way, a more accurate way of looking at the evidence and drawing conclusions. It needs to demonstrate that it indeed does. The burden falls on ID, not on the established scientific community.
In essence I am not saying the SM, is not science, Im saying once you remove your prejudices concerning creationism and ID, youll see the ID process as science, using no different terms or ideas that the SM
Once you stop making this and other fallacious observations and look at the Process we follow, it will present itself as nothing less than a Scientfic investigation or Method
I would be interested in the "process" of ID. I have not seen a "process" clearly outlined (although, I must confess, I have not spent much time looking for it) What makes it different? What makes it the same? You are suggesting that the processes are the same but the conclusions are what are different. The processes need to be demonstrated and the conclusions need to be justified. I have not seen this to be the case.
You were asked about what would you teach during the ID half of the science hour. That may be a good place to start. How could you teach ID in the classroom and meet the requirements of scientific education?
HBD

This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-04-2012 12:59 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 194 by PaulK, posted 01-04-2012 12:50 PM herebedragons has replied
 Message 195 by Trixie, posted 01-04-2012 6:33 PM herebedragons has seen this message but not replied
 Message 211 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-05-2012 1:01 AM herebedragons has replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 164 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


(3)
Message 190 of 358 (646318)
01-04-2012 9:38 AM
Reply to: Message 178 by Buzsaw
01-04-2012 12:15 AM


Re: Unanswered Whys Of Science
The logic, the common sense, the the real here and now observable, the cultural the recorded historical, etc all attest to supportive evidence of an intelligent designer.
You are doing the same thing you always do. You ignore all of the studies and research because you don't trust what you don't understand.
And because common sense is pretty simple to understand you trust it. And when it conflicts with what you don't trust or understand (in you head) it cannot possible be wrong.
This happens in every thread you participate in.

The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53
Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong.
Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by Buzsaw, posted 01-04-2012 12:15 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 164 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


(2)
Message 191 of 358 (646321)
01-04-2012 9:46 AM
Reply to: Message 186 by Dawn Bertot
01-04-2012 7:51 AM


Re: Utter rubbish!
Your biggest error is to assume that Law and Order imply ID.
You have yet to support this.

The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53
Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong.
Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-04-2012 7:51 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 192 of 358 (646331)
01-04-2012 10:06 AM
Reply to: Message 186 by Dawn Bertot
01-04-2012 7:51 AM


Re: Utter rubbish!
Dawn writes:
Instead of grandstanding and making speeches, just show me where my errors are and why my beliefs are getting in the way of my thinking.
There is evidence for natural cause. Not one single example of a supernatural cause has ever been found.
Until you realize those facts, your beliefs are getting in the way of truth.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-04-2012 7:51 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
Butterflytyrant
Member (Idle past 4422 days)
Posts: 415
From: Australia
Joined: 06-28-2011


(1)
Message 193 of 358 (646337)
01-04-2012 10:34 AM


This will be a total waste of time...
Dawn Bertot,
I doubt very much if this will go anywhere at all but here goes...
from Message 77
No one starts an investigation of any type WITHOUT considering the causes of the process.
From your other posts, I believe you are talking about first cauzes. If so, your comment is not correct. Take the theory of evolution for example. Evolution is a process. The first cause of the process is not relevant.
Another example would be studying the process of freezing. It does not matter what has caused the liquid to reach freezing temperature. The process of freezing is being investigated.
Another example could be the study of the effects of dehydration on a plant. I have done many experiments on different drought tolerant plants to study this process. At no stage was it necessary to consider the causes of the dehydration.
Moving on.
You mention a few times that the 'how' and the 'why' of the process is very important -
from Message 77
An investigation that excludes the how and why of the process would make no sense
from Message 89
Every investigation in this context has to start with the idea of how and why.
Ok fair enough. You mention the word process. The process of ID.
Since you believe that ID is a solid scientific position you shoudl be able to answer the following -
1. How did the 'intelligent designer' create the universe?
2. Why did the 'intelligent designer' create the universe?
Considering the following...
from Message 89
The evidence that you seek for ID as science is demonstrated in the exact same way the conclusion of soley natural causes is established, by an investigation of the physical world
...you should be able to provide the scientific data that supports tha answers to those two questions.
Now remember, ID is not religion...
from Message 77
fortunately, ID is science and does not involve religion.
from Message 78
If you removed religion out of the context, creationism and ID would still exist as scientific investigations of the explanations of existence
...so you will have to provide the method (process) by which the 'intelligent designer' created ths universe and also the reason why the 'inteligent designer' created ths universe, with scientific evidence, without referring to scripture.
I am very curious how you know the reason why the 'inteligent designer' created the universe.
From what I can tell of your opinion, you have soley natural cause on one side and ID on the other side as the two options.
On the natural causes side we have 'natural causes' as the how, including, but not limited to the processes of the big bang, abiogenesis, theory of evolution. There is also no need of a reason why. Nature needs no reason.
On the ID side, we have 'an intelligent designer did it' as the how, with no processes and no reason why.
In order to equal the claims of ID, we dont even need to begin discussing evolution or abiogenesis. To equal 'an intelligent designer did it', all we need to say is 'natural causes did it'.
Do you have an scientific data that supports intelligent design, that does not also support evolution?

I could agree with you, but then we would both be wrong
Butterfly, AKA, mallethead - Dawn Bertot
"Superstitions and nonsense from the past should not prevent us from making progress. If we hold ourselves back, we admit that our fears are more powerful than our abilities." Hunters of Dune Herbert & Anderson
2011 leading candidate for the EvC Forum Don Quixote award

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(3)
Message 194 of 358 (646373)
01-04-2012 12:50 PM
Reply to: Message 189 by herebedragons
01-04-2012 9:07 AM


Re: Utter rubbish!
quote:
First of all, the basic premise of ID is that we can detect design in nature and therefore recognize that there must be a designer. The identity and nature of this designer is not revealed. However, my observation is that creationists have latched onto this idea and see it as a way to bring credibility to their cause. So it has become (or at least perceived as) creationism in disguise. That makes it difficult for me personally to support the movement.
I think that it is more accurate to say that ID was founded by creationists to give credibility to their cause. Most of the leading lights of the movement are creationists (Philip Johnson, William Dembski, Jonathan Wells, Nancy Pearcey, Paul Nelson). Some are even Young Earthers. The ID textbook Of Pandas and People started life as a creationist text, only changing track when Young Earth "Creation Science" was found to be religion masquerading as science. Even the definition of "intelligent design" was originally a definition of "creation".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by herebedragons, posted 01-04-2012 9:07 AM herebedragons has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 209 by herebedragons, posted 01-04-2012 10:54 PM PaulK has not replied

  
Trixie
Member (Idle past 3706 days)
Posts: 1011
From: Edinburgh
Joined: 01-03-2004


(2)
Message 195 of 358 (646469)
01-04-2012 6:33 PM
Reply to: Message 189 by herebedragons
01-04-2012 9:07 AM


Re: Utter rubbish!
Just to add to the point PaulK makes, the book "Of Pandas and People" began its life using the term "creationists" to describe the people who believed what was being proposed in the book.
After a court judgement which ruled that Creationism had no place in the science class (I can't remember the details offhand) the book underwent an edit. Wherever the word "creationists" had been used, the term "design proponents" was inserted instead.
During the Dover trial it was revealed that a draft had been found where the term "creationists" had been replaced with "cdesign proponentists" which is a combination of the two terms! Hurrah, a transitional had been found! This proved beyond doubt that the book had originally been intended to teach creationism. It was also shown that very little of the original text had been changed, it still used the same examples and arguments to demonstrate intelligent design as it had to demonstrate creationism.
I think this demonstrates the true face of intelligent design. It is an attempt to sneak creationism into classrooms as science, to subvert the judgement that teaching creation in schools violated the constitution because it injected religion into schools.
The people behind this movement are creationists and everybody knows this. Heck, a member of the Dover board, in making his case for intelligent design to be taught in science classes said word to the effect "2,000 years ago someone died on a cross. Can’t someone take a stand for him? ... "
That's the reason that creationists have latched on to intelligent design - it's creationism in a very transparent disguise.
Edited by Trixie, : To degarble a really, really garbled sentence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by herebedragons, posted 01-04-2012 9:07 AM herebedragons has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 196 by foreveryoung, posted 01-04-2012 7:02 PM Trixie has replied
 Message 197 by hooah212002, posted 01-04-2012 7:03 PM Trixie 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