just an example of whatever.....some faiths desert common sense altogether. TOE is one of them.
Would that be the same "common sense" that tells people that the Earth is flat and that heavier objects fall faster than light ones and that the Sun orbits the Earth?
Practically nothing in science is "common sense", that's why it's necessary to teach science.
I see TOE as a faith and should be taught as such, separating it out of biology in schools.
Ooh, yes! And we could separate the periodic table from chemistry and Maxwell's equations from electricity!
The evidence, research, contradictions etc show me evolution is an unlikely event.
Whereas scientists, the people who are familiar with the evidence and the research, regard evolution as a done deal. Maybe they know something you don't, such as science.
For me it does not matter which creation model is correct ...
Your indifference is singular. I would have thought that that would be rather important, but apparently all that matters to you is denying the findings of scientists.
This may be accomplished by instigating a curriculum of TOE that includes the debates and contradictions within itself, considers all creationist refutes seriously, and teaches TOE as theory, not a fact. That may be a good start.
Taking creationist arguments seriously would involve teaching why they're all crap. Personally, I'm in favor of this.
What you mean by "taught as a theory" you do not say, and possibly you do not know. The theory of evolution is taught in the same way as the germ theory of disease, the theory of gravity, Maxwell's theory, and other things known to be true to a high degree of accuracy.
You have repeatedly blathered about imaginary "contradictions" in evolution; though without, of course, offering anything in support of this nonsense. If you ever wish to even attempt to back up your windy rhetoric with anything of substance, perhaps you could start a thread on this subject.
I realize that as a believer in Darwinism logic may not be your strong point ...
I've taught logic at university, how about you?
, but you seem to have misunderstood his question and [maybe] reinforced his point. He is pointing out that science teachers, in following the Eugenie Scott line of thinking, ARE lying to children.
To lie is to say what one believes to be untrue. For a competent science teacher to recite creationist dogma would be lying, because they know it to be untrue. For them to teach science would not be lying even if it was (which it is not) erroneous, because they believe it to be true.
And it is being done to further YOUR whackadoodle religio (yes, Darwinism is a religion)
What interests me most about this sort of blatant falsehood is the way that the more religious people are, the more apt they are to use "religion" as an insult. Apparently the nastiest thing you can think of to say about Darwinism is that it falls into the same category as Christianity.
Since you seem ignorant of the definitions of each ID and Creationism i'll quote them.
Here, let me help.
"The Intelligent Design movement starts with the recognition that "In the beginning was the Word," and "In the beginning God created."" --- Phillip Johnson, father of the Intelligent Design movement, foreword to Creation, Evolution, & Modern Science
"Intelligent design means that we affirm that God is objectively real as Creator and that the reality of God is tangibly recorded in evidence accessible to science, particularly in biology." --- Phillip Johnson again
"Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit so that we can get the issue of intelligent design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools." --- more Philip Johnson
"Intelligent design is just the logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory." --- William Dembski
"Creation means that the various forms of life began abruptly through the agency of an intelligent creator with their distinctive features already intact. Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc." --- Of Pandas and People as it was originally drafted
"Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact. Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, wings, etc." --- Of Pandas and People when it was published as a textbook of Intelligent Design
"Why, then, do some Darwinists keep trying to conflate intelligent design with creationism?" --- your link
Because the guy who coined the term "intelligent design", Dean Kenyon, co-author of Of Pandas and People, defined ID and creationism the same way. That's why.
And, your point? Good for Philip Johnson that he believes that. So do I believe that God designed. It has nothing to do with the ID theory ...
This is something that you should explain to Phillip Johnson, the father of the Intelligent Design movement, who wrote: "Intelligent design means that we affirm that God is objectively real as Creator".
He might perhaps argue that he knows more about ID than you do.
And Dean Kenyon is if anything a bigger problem. It was he who brought the term ID into use. Disputing his definition of ID is like arguing with Tolkien about what a hobbit is. And his definition of ID is the same as his definition of creationism.
Darwin said lot's of things too, about that pesky fossil record, remember?
Yes he did, and they were absolutely true in 1859 when he wrote them. I don't know how to break this to you, but ... we have found more fossils since then.
"To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies. To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God."
And how will they do that?
Well, the first of their "Five Year Goals" is: "To see intelligent design theory as an accepted alternative in the sciences and scientific research being done from the perspective of design theory."
And the first of their "Twenty Year Goals" is: "To see intelligent design theory as the dominant perspective in science."
But wait! Wait! They're trying to convince people that God created human beings. So how on earth is ID, which has nothing to do with creationism, going to help them to achieve that goal? It's a frickin' mystery.
Well, maybe that is something you can explain to Professor Sir Fred Hoyle:
All sorts of things need explaining to Fred Hoyle, but unfortunately he's dead.
What does this have to do with anything?
Oh, I know you've heard that a million times. So what, it doesn't make it any less true.
I'm not sure it's even possible for anything to make that less true ... perhaps if you combined it with a dissertation on how the first lemon soufflé was invented by a revolving umbrella-stand named Gerald.
No matter how you spin it, your religion is no different, sorry.
I don't have a religion, and no different from what?
Stephen Meyer has some new research out and it's fascinating. I'll post some of it soon enough and we can discuss it. ID has come a LONG way since Dover. Michael Behe too.
What you are saying is that if you produce a master painting, and if John Doe destroys it with an axe, it means the painting was produced by John Doe and not by you.
No, what he is saying is that we can CLEARLY demonstrate natural selection through experimentation. You can tell that 'cos of the way he said: "we can CLEARLY demonstrate natural selection through experimentation".
One can clearly tell there is no such thing as NS; there is only a seed factor with a directive program which governs the resulting offspring. 'A SEED SHALL FOLLOW ITS OWN KIND' is the earliest scientific equation pertaining to reproduction which humanity possesses. ToE missed it and never even mentions it. Try doing w/o it!
If you rewrite that in English, I shall tell you why it's wrong.
Re english. I don't read 'the four corners of the earth' as a reference to a square. You do. You have a problem relating to creationism which is very close to theological disdain seen among the many religions. Your understanding of science is very questionable.
These falsehoods do not relate in any way to the post to which you are ostensibly replying, which did not contain the words "four" or "corners" or "earth" or "square".
No lies or falsehoods other than from you. Here is your brilliant response, which you now seem to understand was highly ignorant and back away from.
quote:"corners". Enough said.
Spheres do not have corners.
There is no other reading than you were trying to make ridicule in reading a wonderful and commonly held phrase to refer to a square or a cornered block. It is hardly a response to my post which says one scripture uniguely does not claim the earth is flat - that's not an opinion but a fact. Of millions of vindicated stats in its verses and pages, you have thus far denied every single one with a lusting. You are arguing as one of the fundamenlaist religions you so despise.
I ask you to please bite the bullet and hail an ancient scripture which never stated what all later scriptures erred in.
I did not write the things which you are pretending that I wrote.
That was Nuggin, who is a different person from me, as you can tell by us not having the same name.
That's not only retarded, but also a deceptive claim. And the fox tail is exposed as follows.
------- The story of ToE is something like this;
Science is referring to a rather specific approach of confirming a specific kind of truth. This specific kind of truth refers to how things keep repeating themselves by following physics laws or natural rules. And the only efficient way to confirm such a kind of truth is to observe how they repeat, then develop a theory on the pattern of how they repeat, then to predict will be resulted on each repeatition. If you predict the repitition results unlimited number of times without failure, the laws/rules/theories you developed are considered a confirmed scientific truth.
For example, if you claim that water (all water) will resolve into hydrogen and oxygen. You'll be able to repeat the resolution unlimited number of times with each time delivering the same expected result (i.e. hydrogen and oxygen). This process is referred to as the predictability of science. If however, something unexpected are resulted instead of hydrogen and oxygen as predicted, the claimed laws/rules/theories (a chemical reaction in this case) are considered to be falsified. This is referred to as the falsifiability of science.
Unlike any other science posseses the characteristic of predictability and falsifyability, ToE is developed totally in another approach. So if all other science is confirmed using this approach while ToE uses another, it is thus doubtful that ToE can be confirmed as a science.
Not only that, ToE (evolutionists that is) here and there makes false and deceptive claims about its capability (or lack thereof) of predictability and falsifyability. Again, if false claims are allowed in a "science", it adds futher doubt about what the theory itself is.
If you declare that 100% species on earth are undergoing and are results of the repeating process of evolution/natural selection, just like the declaration that hydrogen and oxygen shall be resulted by water resolution, you have to make the process repeatable in order to observe, to develop the theory itself and to predict what should be resulted using the theory developed.
On the other hand, if you delare the water (all water) will resolve into hydrogen and oxygen, you can't specify that your theory only works for the water in the kitchen of your house. You need to allow any third party to use any water any where to follow your rule to get the same result. So if you declare that humans, dogs, cats...you name it, are the result of evolution, you should be able to repeatedly reproduce them using the theory you developed. You will be able to say that "under this establishment as a simulated natural environment, natural select shall occur to have humans (or dogs or cats or...you name it) as a resulted product. If something else is produced instead, your theory is thus falsified.
ToE doesn't natively follow this approach to confirm the claimed repeating process (evoluton that is), worse still it provides false claims such as "common ancestry is its predicabililty", common ancestry is what history is, and history occurred only once and thus is not a repeatable process. This is not the predictability science demands for the support of the claim that 100% species evolves by following the repeating rule of natural selection.
Yet another deceptive claim is that ToE's falsifyability and predictability is done through the experimentation of bacteria. So this is just the same claim that "you can use only the water in my kitchen". Science demands that if you declare that 100% species are evolved by following some kind of law, you'll be able to predictably see how humans, dogs, cats, or any species specified by any third party to be produced in an natural environment (the bacteria thingy is more of a manual environment instead of a natural environment).
As a matter of fact, ToE can hardly use a scientifc approach mentioned above to observe how things repeat themselves thus develop the theory and predict the result in accordance to the theory. The approach used by ToE is similar to history study instead of scientific study, they bring up one time historical evidence to try to support and confirm a repeating process. In the perspective that it adapts a totally different approach from any other science, in a sense one may say that it is not a science at all! It is even a false science in the sense that false and deceptive claims are spreaded around. When falsehood is defended religiously, well it is thus a religion!
The forgivable part of ToE is that it adapts such an approach simply because "it is so difficult to follow the correct way to do things" as it is almost impossible to establish a simulated natural environment and to give the required time for us to observe the process. Forgivable but this won't make the "theory" any 'better'.
Have you ever considered the possibility that it is scientists who know what the scientific method is and you who don't?