Summations Only

quote:

---

Teaching ID in a science class would be teaching religion in a science class.

---

Wrong, teaching that life originated as the result of a higher power has nothing to do with religion.

quote:

---

Either life had a natural origin or it doesn't, ie. therefore God/s. Since ID essentially tries to rule out #1, it implicitly requires that life (& a lot more besides) was created by divine intervention.

---

circular argument. God/Creation has no bearing on natural /unnatural laws. Such arguments are nothing more than literary implications people employ to satisfy beliefs.

quote:

---

The ID movement tries very hard to distance itself from mentioning god, even going so far as to say, "we don't know what the designer is". Regardless, it is implicit that ID must invoke the supernatural at some stage.

---

Again, more word play. Supernatural ranks up with magic and hocus-pocus. Such classifications are purely human and has no reflection on an entities ability to manipulate matter etc.a few years back it would have been supernatural to promote the carrying of several tons of material in the air. Today, it is commonplace. Perhaps it's time to come out of the closet and start evaluating evidence matters with an open mind instead of adding breath to the indoctrinations of our ancestors.

Lets drop the religious labels and stick to basics. The creation account was not written in the name religion. It was adopted as such and has been misused ever since. Nonetheless, this implication alone has no consequence on the heart of the matter. That a Creator/Creation is unscientific. Such reasoning resides purely on our own limitations and understanding of matters.Evidence? It was written that God created the heavens and the earth, and here we are...
Let's save ourselves a large portion of time, and throw out the concept of matter originated from nothing as science(talk about supernatural).Edited by pbee, : typo

quote:

---

ID is also a dead end.

---

No one has any given advantage here. Likewise, no one holds any authority over the other either.

quote:

---

ID is terrible theology and it would also mean that science is useless and worthless.

---

Depends on the quality of ones research. I happen to think that the concept of life and it's origins as a result from a common point of energy precedes any theory that life just fell into place as a result of nothing and somehow produced results which end in total defiance of the natural laws which bind us(but that's just me).

quote:

---

The ID folk point to a very few examples and declare they are designed. When others point to examples of really piss poor design found

---

Such as...

quote:

---

Well, regardless of the intent of the Designer, we can judge the products based our own understanding. Just as when we buy a washer or dryer, we can examine the products and decide which is well designed, which was designed to achieve a price point and which is just junk.

---

Yes, and if there is one thing we have proven as a race, it is that we are very qualified in our capacity to identify good from bad. I mean, just look around you, the world is destined to a path of prosperity and longevity!

quote:

---

I think ID should be taught, taught as an example of silliness.

---

In the face of the competition, ID trounces the alternates. Science has nothing but convoluted theories and dead ends. The only thing that drives people away from ID is fear.

quote:

---

That says it all right there, doesn't it? Let's throw science out with the bath water.

​

The topic is about teaching ID in science class. If you're going to dismiss science as "convoluted theories and dead ends", what's the point of teaching science at all?

---

This was in reference to deciphering the origin of life and not science as a whole.When it comes to evaluating the origins of life, science has nothing logical to offer. Those who choose to put their own faith and beleifs into a theory that life somehow originated from nothing are delusional. We have zero evidence to support the concept that life could originate from nothing and despite our greatest efforts, we have yet to produce anything better than Creation to satisfy the questions of existence.If anything, the general scientific mindset casts limitations to the honest and open evaluation of life and origin. Why?.... fear! Edited by pbee, : No reason given.

None of the original materials(recordings) were proprietary to a religion or sect at that time. They were Authored by God and written by people without religious branding(despite what the Vatican says)

quote:

---

Mind to elaborate this a little more? If I understand this statement correctly, I would argue that the other way around is true. The wistful thinking that a heavenly father created us and a heaven for us to reside in after our ultimate demise comes directly from fear... fear of the unknown. How does trying to explore possibilities of a natural and humble beginning for life come from fear?

---

Well that's understandable. First of all, heaven was not designed for humans. Secondly, a God of fear was never the intent. Looks to me like you've obtained your education from acclaimed religious enterprises.While I am not knocking the possibilities of ascension from physical to spiritual, we have no mention or reason to conclude this was part of the plan.

quote:

---

So what? You can't just cherry-pick the bits of science you like and throw out what you don't like. It's all interrelated. if you throw out the science of origins, you're throwing out all of it.

---

Really? you mean the science police will come and arrest me for selecting logical theories over the illogical ones? As a free spirited being, I will independently evaluate and conclude what is, and is not, acceptable where science and beliefs are concerned. Might I add that only mindless fools would live otherwise(but they do exist nonetheless). Proof that human beings can make a religion out of just about anything.

quote:

---

You're welcome to bring that opinion to the science forums and back it up with facts.

---

We have nothing. There is no sense dumping the obvious on people only to watch them scramble as they come up with convoluted reasoning to justify their beliefs. The simple truth is, "we have nothing". Anyone claiming to have the answers is either, full of shit or lacks the capacity to distinguish between reality and fantasy. Either way, the resulting conditions are the same.

quote:

---

And there y'go, betraying your general disdain for science.

---

Is this even worth addressing? "Science is not perfect" this isn't new. The sooner people can accept that, the sooner we can take things to the next level. For the most part, people who run in fear of the concept of creation are close minded. However, science is already well on it's way to discovering the existence of alternate realms(oops). Just don't mention realms and alien lifeforms on the same report to the SAB though. Edited by pbee, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Which creation account. There are many creation mythologies.

---

You know, the one where an entity created life.

quote:

---

God didn't create the heavens and the earth, and here we are...

---

Right, and no doubt we have science and reason to back-up such a statement. As I stated, the onset that life originated from nothing is utter nonsense. It defies all laws. It wouldn't be so bad if your proposal was backed by logic(at the very least). At least we would have something to contemplate.Anti-creationists(atheists etc) will argue, poke fun at and discriminate others for not sharing their beliefs regardless of the level of logic surrounding it. Sure... no one needs to accept creation but discriminating others for believing otherwise is based on barbaric behavior nothing more(old habits die hard).

quote:

---

You'll be expected to show how the accepted theories are "illogical" and how your ideas better explain the evidence.

---

Really? last I looked, we existed without any *scientific explanations to that effect. You're waisting time with such dead end attempts to strike an argument. Perhaps you could put a little effort into your next response.

quote:

---

Your personal "acceptance" is worthless. Science works by consensus - and even the school boards who accept/reject science work by consensus.

---

You know until now, I was under the impression that we were all independent beings with the inherent capacity of free thought. But now... having read, that "even the school boards" are in on it, well... I'm definitely going to turn such wasteful independent thinking into the widespread trend fitting thinking instead. - Thank-you Ringo for setting me free!(insert sarcasm here)

quote:

---

Only mindless fools prefer their own delusions to the tested conclusions of the collected best minds in the world.
I know you have nothing. That's why you're afraid to back up your empty opinions in the science forums.

---

Even for you... this is bellow average. Forgive me for not putting faith into(the best minds in the world) people. Again, only the impressionable will be impressed by those acclaimed by none other than people. Since when has the big bang theory of otherwise been proven? Nothing but cheap talk propped up by more talk.You're absolutely right! You caught me! I was faking it the whole time. Science has the answers to the origin of life and the onset that matter can indeed come out of nothing and nowheres. As demonstrated by the greatest minds in the world(like you said). Ever hear the saying "Careful what you buy, you get what you pay for". The same applies for education. People are to damned possessive of there purchases, it's an obsession.Reeling it back in, the problem with teaching in schools and universities is it that the current trends drives people to dishonest presentations of information. Saying the system is biased is a gross understatement. While I have no problems with theories, I do take issue with the thought of educating children with theories presented as fact. If schools and education outlets are going to be honest about the presentation of information, then they should play by their own rules and stop monopolizing the platform.There is as much worth(if not more) to the theory of creation than the originating of matter from nothing, which in turn ties into eternity, followed by yet more nothing and so on and so forth. Radical atheists, are very careful not to cross the line into eternal realms. All the while, it is logically and empirically impossible to resolve matter without the dreaded element of eternity.

Big bang theory(as an example). What ever happened to the truth?
Science has no clue how we got here! The existence of all things based on our observations are beyond the scope of our knowledge at this time.

quote:

---

Look harder.

---

more time waisting. There is nothing, don't bother playing the wildcard it only works on ignorant and impressionable people.

quote:

---

We are free to think what we like. Our thoughts are more likely to be accurate/useful if they agree with the thoughts of others.

---

Sure, unless those same others take it to far. Are you going to now deny that our history is plagued with the fact that we are unable to maintain proper balance in all that we do? I believe some things(sensible ones) and I reject the illogical or insensible ones. Having it any other way is living a life of fools.

quote:

---

Those who trust their own thoughts too much are likely to turn out like Charles Manson.

---

I don't know who that man is, nor do I care since it has no bearing on your statement. The key here is "to much". A balanced person will strike a chord right in the middle. To much of anything will produce bad results. Just as some will applaud a person for a discovery, they all to often get overcome by emotion and end up placing more credibility than due in that same person(s) abilities.There is no scientific law or divine status-quo pertaining to ones acceptance of published scientific information, so don't bother trying to impress anyone with such ridiculous nonsense. Science has been plagued with miss(insert adjective here) since the dawn of human observation. Is it even worth mentioning that every passed will look back and ridicule the level of reasoning and behavior applied by preceding generations? You would think we would of learned! Yet here we are here in the 21st century walking and talking as though this is it! ( like the fools that we are)Bottom line is, science doesn't have the answers to the origins of life. I'm not saying we may never discover some conclusive evidence to decipher the big question, however, this is the state of things as they stand. This takes us right back to my original statement. Where the origin of life is concerned, science has nothing, nada, zero, nothing. It's as obvious as the daylight and yet people are just to stubborn and deluded to acknowledge it.Proof that for some, science is just another label for religious fanatacism.Edited by pbee, : typo

quote:

---

My point was, and it would be obvious to most people, that because something is written down does not make it evidence.

---

Your point was quite clear, and my point was that if your going to provide illustrations, then it should at least stand on its own two feet. The original statement was backed with a few details to justify it's worth. Your statement did not stand to reason whatsoever.

quote:

---

You seem to be one of these strange people who are suffering from the fixed delusion that words written in a book thousands of years ago by people who couldn't even map a tenth of this planet have some special, magic truth and knowledge of the secrets of the universe in them.

---

Well you've proven that you can half haphazardly prop up an argument, but I doubt you are ready to patronize others based on your own insight just yet. Without ever discriminating the scriptures, I can say with full confidence that the content(theory) provided in that single account is beyond anything we have to this very day.

quote:

---

If that's the case, what makes you think an ancient book is magical?

---

Magic is for children and fairytales. Are you upholding such beliefs with you as an adult or are you still young at heart? I never once thought the scriptures were magical in any way shape of form. Your on your own with that.

I'm going to throw a bone here, and it isn't out of generosity. The scientific educational practices do vary geographically. So while I may recite teaching practices relative to our own region, they would most likely differ from your own.Why would the big bang theory(unmeasurable by current scientific method) make it's way into school curriculum's whilst creation would not?Since when is the concept of a force or source of energy unworthy of scientific consideration? It would seem as though the big bang theory gets it's props by personal status while creation gets repelled by fear. Whatever the case, these aspect of scientific education are bound by a biased and closed minded system.Down the intelligent life beyond our own and in with illogical theories to circumvent the implications of the first rule.

There is about as much point to your question as me answering "you'll have to site in in schools around here and see for yourself". Doesn't make much sense does it. That's just the way it is unfortunately.

Very good!