T
tjm190
Guest
So ID proponents have no objection to teaching only what we have learned though natural means with respect to speciation?
- Status
R
ricmat
Guest
So which type of creationism are you talking about?I don’t believe for a second that real scientists believe in creationism, i suspect most want to make cash.
I can see why a lot of the uneducated religious masses in the US believe it, but anyone that understands science has to understand why creationism is not science.
I love all the folk on this forum that don’t have a clue about science that think anyone should care about their opinion. If you want people to care, then get a PHD and enter the academic arena. However if your a creationist be prepared to have your worked chewed up and spat out by real science.
Personally, I’m an electrical engineer so I know a bit about science.
Read “Signature in the Cell” and get back to me. It’s probably beyond you (scientifically), but give it a shot. Then we can discuss that.
R
ricmat
Guest
You have a lot to learn about ID. The sooner you start, the earlier you’ll be able to ask good questions.
LATE EDIT: HERE’S A HINT. ID is NOT the same as Young Earth Creationism.
I’ve been pushing “Signature in the Cell” because I just read it myself. It’s a good book which covers the history of evolutionary thought, DNA, and how science solves problems using various methods. “Natural means”. If you have an open mind, you should enjoy reading it.
T
tjm190
Guest
I know quite abit about ID, and enough about logic to know that “dedicate a couple dozen hours to my cause and you’ll see what I mean” is a non argument.
You claim I have constructed a strawman, which means you believe you have a good idea of what the argument I should have been countering looks like. Enlighten me, if you will.
Edit response- The mainstream ID movement in American politics seeks to have some version of YEC taught in the class room in some form- hence, that’s generally the go to area to criticize. If you’re from a different faction, then give us some info.
E
edwest2
Guest
This is Catholic Answers, not world mythology. And no, anti-theists, including Richard Dawkins, are not afraid of Poseiden, they’re concerned that the Christian God might be mentioned. Your silly example does not address the issue.
“Okay class. Today, we are going to look at the cell as containing nanomachinery.” That is a realistic example of a possible opening statement.
Peace,
Ed
R
ricmat
Guest
Again, ID is NOT the same as YEC.
The fact that you state that ID wants to have some version of YEC taught in the classroom tells me that you’ve never read anything about ID except from anti-ID websites.
Sure, there are some folks that think ID is a wedge to teaching about God in the classroom. But there are far fewer of them than there are atheists who think that teaching evolution (with no alternatives presented) is a way to teach anti-God in the classroom.
Here’s a few items…but again, I strongly recommend Signature in the Cell.
intelligentdesign.org/faq.php
Is intelligent design theory incompatible with evolution?
Code:
It depends on what one means by the word "evolution." If one simply means "change over time," or even that living things are related by common ancestry, then there is no inherent conflict between evolutionary theory and intelligent design theory. However, the dominant theory of evolution today is neo-Darwinism, which contends that evolution is driven by natural selection acting on random mutations, an unpredictable and purposeless process that "has no discernable direction or goal, including survival of a species." (NABT Statement on Teaching Evolution). It is this specific claim made by neo-Darwinism that intelligent design theory directly challenges. No. Intelligent design theory is simply an effort to empirically detect whether the "apparent design" in nature acknowledged by virtually all biologists is genuine design (the product of an intelligent cause) or is simply the product of an undirected process such as natural selection acting on random variations. Creationism is focused on defending a literal reading of the Genesis account, usually including the creation of the earth by the Biblical God a few thousand years ago. Unlike creationism, the scientific theory of intelligent design is agnostic regarding the source of design and has no commitment to defending Genesis, the Bible or any other sacred text. Honest critics of intelligent design acknowledge the difference between intelligent design and creationism. University of Wisconsin historian of science Ronald Numbers is critical of intelligent design, yet according to the Associated Press, he "agrees the creationist label is inaccurate when it comes to the ID [intelligent design] movement." Why, then, do some Darwinists keep trying to conflate intelligent design with creationism? According to Dr. Numbers, it is because they think such claims are "the easiest way to discredit intelligent design." In other words, the charge that intelligent design is "creationism" is a rhetorical strategy on the part of Darwinists who wish to delegitimize design theory without actually addressing the merits of its case. For more information read Dr. Stephen Meyer's piece ["Intelligent Design is not Creationism"](http://www.discovery.org/a/3191) that appeared in *The Daily Telegraph* (London) or Dr. John West's piece ["Intelligent Design and Creationism Just Aren't the Same"](http://www.discovery.org/a/1329) in *Research News & Opportunities.*
E
edwest2
Guest
In cells, we can observe complex, interdependent parts that are not likely to have assembled themselves into such a highly complex biological system. ID relies on observation of how things actually appear
Peace,
Ed
R
ricmat
Guest
Actually, here’s something closer to your issue:
discovery.org/csc/topQuestions.php
Questions about Science Education Policy
1. Does Discovery Institute favor including the Bible or creationism in science classes or textbooks?
Click here for video
No. Discovery Institute is not a creationist organization, and it does not favor including either creationism or the Bible in biology textbooks or science classes.
2. Is Discovery Institute trying to eliminate, reduce or censor the coverage of evolution in textbooks?
Click here for video
No. Far from reducing the coverage of evolution, Discovery Institute seeks to increase the coverage of evolution in textbooks. It believes that evolution should be fully and completely presented to students, and they should learn more about evolutionary theory, including its unresolved issues. The true censors are those who want to stop any discussion of the scientific weaknesses of evolutionary theory.
3. Should public schools require the teaching of intelligent design?
No. Instead of mandating intelligent design, Discovery Institute recommends that states and school districts focus on teaching students more about evolutionary theory, including telling them about some of the theory’s problems that have been discussed in peer-reviewed science journals. In other words, evolution should be taught as a scientific theory that is open to critical scrutiny, not as a sacred dogma that can’t be questioned. We believe this is a common-sense approach that will benefit students, teachers, and parents.
T
tjm190
Guest
So at the foundation of the movement is that a particular ‘impression’ a phenomena gives should acknowledged in the class room? (The diversity of life gives ID proponents the impression of design [pardon my grammar])
T
tjm190
Guest
I keep hearing likelihood and probability theory thrown around, and I’ve yet to see the data used to compute such a figure.
T
tjm190
Guest
So only your particular super natural explanations are going to be taught? What’s wrong with Poseidon, and why can’t our children be informed of his vendetta against L.A.?
And how many times do you have to loose the irreducible complexity debate before you stop using it? (inb4 i haven’t lost it yet)
T
twinc
Guest
according to some it would seem that God is a theologian and not a scientist.Could this be as some have suspected and stated that some wacky scientists think they are God.Exactly what is meant by creationists are wacky when evolutionists like Hitler were not wacky or the German medical profession and there are doctors now saying some very disturbing things re survival of the fittest etc - more later - twinc
A
A_Dancer_Whirls
Guest
Lets discuss right now. Have you studied beyond degree level, do you understand the scientific method?
A
A_Dancer_Whirls
Guest
P
prodigalson12
Guest
If you want to debate this, contemplate into scientific working models along the process of creation. It is a system of resoninounce harmonics and vibrational frequencies that when properly tuned, will not only form matter from nothing, can adjust it into any given shape, form, or energy. Take note in Genesis, where it states “God Says” along each step of creation if you need a biblical reference to back up what I am saying here.
I will not go beyond this explanation, but I will very much say, creationists do have an exacting scientific basis behind it, just know that it’s too far advanced to use as an application for any practical use for man because we are so vastly limited in too may ways to be able to apply and use it for our own purposes, and this is probably a good thing we cannot.
I will not go beyond this explanation, but I will very much say, creationists do have an exacting scientific basis behind it, just know that it’s too far advanced to use as an application for any practical use for man because we are so vastly limited in too may ways to be able to apply and use it for our own purposes, and this is probably a good thing we cannot.
B
buffalo
Guest
Everyone should be concerned that children are taught the whole truth and nothing but he truth.
The IC debate - perhaps you do not understand what they are getting at. If you want a mousetrap to work it needs the parts. Take one of the parts away and it does not function. Sure the other parts can be used for something else. Now a mousetrap is pretty simple having only a few parts that need to come together. (I won’t even talk about each component and its design). When we start talking about adding more components one at a time the odds increase exponentially with each one.
IC simply means that to function as it does, it needs the parts. This is specified complexity for an intended purpose.
T
tjm190
Guest
Here’s your specific example- video.google.com/videosearch?client=safari&rls=en&q=irreducible+complexity+mousetrap&oe=UTF-8&um=1&ie=UTF-8&ei=Of_qSv3YBtPZlAeBvPz_BA&sa=X&oi=video_result_group&ct=title&resnum=5&ved=0CBoQqwQwBA#
Still waiting on those numbers. You can’t just claim ‘the odds say this’ without a fairly pedantic equation.
R
ricmat
Guest
It’s in “Signature in the Cell”. Read the book.
R
ricmat
Guest
Design is not “an impression.” You typed the above post on a computer. I think we can agree that your computer was “designed by an intelligent agent” and did not self construct over time from random variations and natural laws.
Design exists.
“Diversity of life” is not something ID addresses directly. If you actually read the posts I made earlier (the ones with the FAQs) you would know this.
R
ricmat
Guest
Yes, I understand many scientific methods. There is more than one, you know.
- Status