Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,822 Year: 4,079/9,624 Month: 950/974 Week: 277/286 Day: 38/46 Hour: 0/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Intelligent Design Class to be taught at Cornell University
ReverendDG
Member (Idle past 4137 days)
Posts: 1119
From: Topeka,kansas
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 20 of 168 (306399)
04-25-2006 3:43 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by PaulK
04-25-2006 2:46 AM


Re: IDEA club
It's easy for IDists to spin things, when they make up meanings to words they use, then change them to deflect people trying to figure out what they mean

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by PaulK, posted 04-25-2006 2:46 AM PaulK has not replied

ReverendDG
Member (Idle past 4137 days)
Posts: 1119
From: Topeka,kansas
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 29 of 168 (306436)
04-25-2006 8:23 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by iano
04-25-2006 5:46 AM


Re: Beauty contest?
Like I say, its early days. And it may be that ID is never science, but if the aims of the people behind it are indeed to return a creator God to centre-stage and use pseudo-science to enable that then so what? This is a free society - anyone is a free to resist the ID movement if they see fit.
maybe it is trying to return god to center stage, but IDists are trying to dress ID up as a viable alternitive scientific theory to ToE. When it doesn't even explain anything, but they claim it does, when its only explaination is to invoke a force we can't test or observe in some way, nor can we gain insight into how things work using ID
ID isn't science its a religious-politacal con-job hiding behind science
Criticising its lack of science is one tack. Personally I don't think that will stop it - the game is being played out on a broader stage. And what tactics one should employ to torpedo it is beyond me.
its being played out by lobbiests and badgering publishers, rather than through science. The only way we can show its wrong is to teach our children proper science so when they are adults they don't get fooled by snake-oil salesmen like the heads of IDist groups

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by iano, posted 04-25-2006 5:46 AM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by iano, posted 04-25-2006 8:54 AM ReverendDG has not replied

ReverendDG
Member (Idle past 4137 days)
Posts: 1119
From: Topeka,kansas
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 159 of 168 (307579)
04-28-2006 9:38 PM
Reply to: Message 147 by iano
04-27-2006 3:39 PM


Re: One last peek before I log off ...crap!
I understand his request too. I just don't see the need to provide any evidence for the designer himself in order for ID to move into the realm of science. The question simply isn't relevant to me.
well then, it really should not be taught since there is barely any evidence and showing the designer is the biggest and most obvious
I don't know how to progress things if I hold the question to be irrelevant and he holds that it is and we cannot discuss why I hold it is irrelevant and he cannot why it is. My approach was to attempt to show that science doesn't require this kind of show-it-before-you-find-it evidence elsewhere.
i'm not sure what science you are talking about, its not the science that people produce. If ID has no evidence or answers no questions that other theory have been able to, then it should not be taught as a science class

This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by iano, posted 04-27-2006 3:39 PM iano 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