ID KO'd in Pennsylvania

[rlg94086]

wanerious:

Boy, I don’t know. A whole 3 articles? And one of them was “peer-reviewed” for a conference on design? And their “peer-reviewed” books bear closer scrutiny. Behe claimed his book was “peer-reviewed”, citing what turned out to be a 10-minute phone conversation about the general contents as a critical “review”. And a few articles “supportive” of ID? This just smacks of slick marketing and PR speak. Especially compared to the thousands of articles published monthly based upon evolutionary theory.

Have you studied ID? Or, are you just reacting? Scientists usually study a theory before rejecting it. I do not know if there is merit in ID, but I’m going to do the research. What I’ve noticed with people who are virulently against it, is that they use quick math: ID=creationism, therefore it’s not science.

 

[bgaCath]

When I cited then Cardinal Ratzinger and the document it’s from, that’s called a source and you should know that. This is a Catholic forum, so if you think I’ve cited something falsely by your “if it’s genuine” comment you had better be able to back it up first.

I’m prepared to give you even more references because I think you need them. But you need to apologize for implying that I had falsely cited the Holy Father. And the next time you disbelieve what a Catholic is telling you about the Church, you would do us all a favor to educate yourself about the subject first.

Holy Father also said Evolution Theory is a lie by atheist.
you shouldn’t question this. it’s from Holy Father anyway.

Hope you can realize your arrogance now.

 

[Thekla]

rlg94086:

Have you studied ID? Or, are you just reacting? Scientists usually study a theory before rejecting it. I do not know if there is merit in ID, but I’m going to do the research. What I’ve noticed with people who are virulently against it, is that they use quick math: ID=creationism, therefore it’s not science.

ID=creationism is not a link without a basis. In the Dover SB trial, the plaintiffs were clearly able to show the “evolution” of creationism into intelligent design in the Pandas “textbook.” It’s kind of funny when you see how they barely bother to change the text except to replace the “creation” with “intelligent design.”
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. (Biology and Creation 1986, FTE 3014-3015, pp. 2-13, 2-14)

Creation means that 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. (Biology and Origins 1987, FTE 3235, 3237, p. 2-13, 2-14)

Creation means that 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. (Pandas 1987, creationist version, FTE 4996-4997, pp. 2-14, 2-15)

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, and wings, etc. (Pandas 1987, intelligent design version, FTE 4666-4667, pp. 2-14, 2-15)

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, and wings, etc. (Pandas 1989, 1st edition, published, pp. 99-100)

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, and wings, etc. (Pandas 1993, 2nd edition, published, pp. 99-100)

 

[bgaCath]

Thekla:

ID=creationism is not a link without a basis…

Can you falsify ID? current ID model allows to be falsified.

 

[Thekla]

bgaCath:

When I cited then Cardinal Ratzinger and the document it’s from, that’s called a source and you should know that. This is a Catholic forum, so if you think I’ve cited something falsely by your “if it’s genuine” comment you had better be able to back it up first.

I’m prepared to give you even more references because I think you need them. But you need to apologize for implying that I had falsely cited the Holy Father. And the next time you disbelieve what a Catholic is telling you about the Church, you would do us all a favor to educate yourself about the subject first.

Holy Father also said Evolution Theory is a lie by atheist.
you shouldn’t question this. it’s from Holy Father anyway.

Hope you can realize your arrogance now.

As I said, you would be doing us all a favor to educate yourself about the Church’s stance on the Theory of Evolution. It’s too bad that you can’t apologize for your earlier incorrect statements and now your currrent one, but that’s how it is with some people.

 

[bgaCath]

Thekla:

As I said, you would be doing us all a favor to educate yourself about the Church’s stance on the Theory of Evolution. It’s too bad that you can’t apologize for your earlier incorrect statements and now your currrent one, but that’s how it is with some people.

you can’t support your claim instead resorting to intimidating and ridiculing

 

[Lurch104]

wanerious:

N

Of course ID wasn’t being taught yet. That’s why it was in court. Why do you keep saying this? The board passed a change in the school curriculum to teach creation science in the science classroom. Parents rightly sued the board to keep this from happening. We ought not mandate the teaching of bad science in the science classroom.

Uh, link please??? The only thing the school board voted on was to read the statement I had posted above, that is it.

For the others, yes I read the entire decision. I do not agree with it.

 

[Lurch104]

Orogeny:

Supposed catholics? A bit arrogant, hmmm?

Peace

Tim

I don’t think so. I find it hard to believe that a practicing Catholic would celebrate a secular institution indoctrinating children against their faith.

 

[Lurch104]

Thekla:

Don’t assume that we don’t know how the School Board was trying to slip this in. I don’t want something called ID taught to my kids. I don’t want it pointed out to them in a science class when it isn’t science. And I don’t want astrology brought up in the astronomy class.

You keep proving my point. The only thing being taught was the statement I had posted above. That is it, all of it. If you consider that a lesson, I feel sorry for your students.

The board was NOT teaching ID, only pointing out that there is discussion about evolution. Then teaching evolution.

 

[Thekla]

Lurch104:

You keep proving my point. The only thing being taught was the statement I had posted above. That is it, all of it. If you consider that a lesson, I feel sorry for your students.

The board was NOT teaching ID, only pointing out that there is discussion about evolution. Then teaching evolution.

First of all, I said that I don’t want ID brought up to my kids (I didn’t say students) in their science class. Second of all, there is not discussion about evolution in the science community. It’s considered “settled.” The problem with evolution exists with some religious communities; the Catholic Church not being one of them.

 

[bgaCath]

Second of all, there is not discussion about evolution in the science community. It’s considered “settled.”

It’s a bluff and I call it.
it’s never considered settled outside communist countries.

unless you dismiss them all as religious right maniacs

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=65664&highlight=evolution

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=86434&highlight=evolution
not strictly ID or ET

 

[rlg94086]

Thekla:

First of all, I said that I don’t want ID brought up to my kids (I didn’t say students) in their science class. Second of all, there is not discussion about evolution in the science community. It’s considered “settled.” The problem with evolution exists with some religious communities; the Catholic Church not being one of them.

Really? “Settled?” That seems awfully arrogant on the part of the scientific community.

What else is settled? That atoms are the smallest particle? Oops, that turned out not to be true.

 

[cathologos]

Lurch104:

For those of you who insist that ID was being taught, here is the ONLY statement that was to be read regarding ID before EVOLUTION was taught:

OK, Lurch104, let’s look at this statement:

• "The Pennsylvania Academic Standards require students to learn about Darwin’s theory of evolution and eventually take a standardized test of which evolution is a part. Because Darwin’s theory is a theory, it continues to be tested as new evidence is discovered. The theory is not a fact.* Gaps in the theory exist for which there is no evidence. A theory is defined as a well tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations.

OK… First, “the theory is not a fact.” That’s correct – but that’s true of all scientific theories. Facts are data. They have no explanatory power. You can’t use a fact to understand what will happen tomorrow. That’s what theories are for. This argument is used, and often effective, only because many people are ignorant of even the basics of science. “The theory is not a fact” is not a criticism or denigration to anybody who isn’t hopelessly ignorant of science. But many Americans, unfortunately, are pretty much hopelessly ignorant of science (and of many other things). Because of this, the “not a fact” argument, in the hands of one who wishes to mislead, can be very effective. But it’s not honest; it is misleading.

• Intelligent design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin’s view. The reference book, ‘Of Pandas and People’ is available in the library along with other resources for students who might be interested in gaining an understanding of what intelligent design actually involves.*

The statement said above, “A theory is defined as a well tested explanation…” Well, ID is not “well-tested.” It isn’t “tested” at all. Nobody has offered any means to test it scientifically or experimentally. Such tests have been invited – repeatedly – but ID supporters are silent when asked to put up or shut up.

Secondly, the “reference book.” This particular book is a Creationist tract, which was global-edited to replace “Creationism” with 'Intelligent Design." Referring to this work as a scientific reference is a joke, or an insult.

Overall, this statement is not inoffensive. If the Board wanted students to question the theory of evolution, there are legitimate, scientific ways to do that. Point out that the theory is incomplete (as are essentially all scientific theories). Encourage the students to think of ways to test the theory, to try to understand its limitations, etc. But this was not done. The Board’s solution wasn’t to have the students use science class to do science, by exploring and testing an established hypothesis; their solution was to have the class consider rejecting the scientific theory, and the scientific process entirely, and instead take up a completely unscientific, untestable supernatural philosophical explanation for natural phenomena. This isn’t just opposition to Darwin, or to evolution; it is opposition to the very processes of science.

If you want to argue that rejection of the basic principles of science is a legitimate thing to teach in high school science class…well, that’s your prerogative, but I don’t think you’ll get many adherents.

 

[bgaCath]

cathologos:

The statement said above, “A theory is defined as a well tested explanation…” Well, ID is not “well-tested.” It isn’t “tested” at all. Nobody has offered any means to test it scientifically or experimentally. Such tests have been invited – repeatedly – but ID supporters are silent when asked to put up or shut up.

all living thing have some much in common that human and plants can share most of the genetic features is a direct evidence support ID rather than ET. under ET it’s more likely there’re multiple sources of life and each following its own genetic structure.

cathologos:

Secondly, the “reference book.” This particular book is a Creationist tract, which was global-edited to replace “Creationism” with 'Intelligent Design." Referring to this work as a scientific reference is a joke, or an insult.

Bible implies ID or ET? you really offends me and many others by calling Bible a joke or an insult.

 

[Thekla]

rlg94086:

Really? “Settled?” That seems awfully arrogant on the part of the scientific community.

What else is settled? That atoms are the smallest particle? Oops, that turned out not to be true.

Yeah it is. After a while, certain things in the scientific community have been settled: the existence of gravity, the planets rotating around the sun, etc. The Theory of Evolution is considered settled science but if someone wants to take a crack at it “scientifically” they are welcome to do so.

The problem with the ID/creationist proponents is that they don’t like the outcome of evolution so they want to change the theory. In science, you are supposed to go where the facts lead you and come to a conclusion; you don’t start with the conclusion and work your way backwards. That is the fundamental flaw in their attempts to make what they are doing into a science.

Why then can’t they just be honest about it instead of trying to disguise it? The answer is because the SCOTUS already told them that creationism cannot be taught in the public schools so they are game playing with science. Really disingenuous when you think about it.

 

[cathologos]

bgaCath:

all living thing have some much in common that human and plants can share most of the genetic features is a direct evidence support ID rather than ET. under ET it’s more likely there’re multiple sources of life and each following its own genetic structure.

I’m sorry, but I have no idea what you’re trying to say here.

Bible implies ID or ET? you really offends me and many others by calling Bible a joke or an insult.

The “reference book” cited in the Dover statement wasn’t the Bible, it was Of Pandas and People. And I stand by my characterization of that book, and by my suggestion that the Dover School Board’s describing that book as a “reference book” was a joke or an insult.

I don’t know how you reached the conclusion that I had reference to the Bible.

 

[bgaCath]

Science is about every that is true, NOT JUST things that can be explained scientifically.

Do you think it’s true Jesus literally resurrected the 3rd day after being crucified and died?
now explain this using scientific method.

However one can always scientifically prove any creature if dead can’t resurrect. Do you think it’s science to say Jesus never resurrected or performed any other miracles while the opposite is true?

ET is based on a series of non-sequiturs. as I’ve said many times before, genetic link between species imply single designer rather than random start of life. ET implies multiple parrel irrelevant genetic types, as we know it’s not true.

another example: tell me, why only human have such intelligence while according to ET everything stands equal chance of developing high intelligence?

 

[Digger71]

bgaCath:

and the genetic difference is? How about the genetic difference between human and apes and even plants?
Show me a creature that has little genetic similarity with others. a silicon based being instead carbon based for example

single designer or multi designer, That’s not the focus of this thread. if God will he can certainly create a mermaids but there’s no needs for that. through random mutation, it’s almost certain there’re other creature has the same advanced brain as humans yet bare no resemble of looking for example.

You see…actually you dont…but lets go on. A designer could do ‘it’ any way thay wanted. A desgner could make beasts out of silicon, given fish fur or feathers…anything.

But evolution predicts relationships, continuity, etc.

Your ‘designer’ according to you, made everything LOOK like evolution, but no designer needs to do that.

Why the strict increase in complexity? Why the strict chronology? Hmmm, evolution explains it. Design does not.

Oh, and for the focus of the thread…please, it’s like you actually don’t want to understand the issues.

 

[rlg94086]

Thekla:

The problem with the ID/creationist proponents is that they don’t like the outcome of evolution so they want to change the theory. In science, you are supposed to go where the facts lead you and come to a conclusion; you don’t start with the conclusion and work your way backwards. That is the fundamental flaw in their attempts to make what they are doing into a science.

That may be true about strict creationists (I’m assuming you believe God created the earth). I don’t believe it’s true with Intelligent Design scientists. From what little I read so far, it has more to do with finding things in science tho origin of which can only be explained through intelligent (name removed by moderator)ut, as opposed to organic development.

Have you read any of the ID works? What have you found? So far, I’ve only seen people quote things from the case or from some analyst they read. I’m going to give the books and refutations a good read and make up my own mind. Rather than paint all of these scientists with a broad, creationist brush, I’d rather hear them out.

 

[bgaCath]

Digger71:

You see…

we’re talking of a INTELLIGENT designer not a idiotic or random designer. what cold blooded creature need furs for? why do you need two species of equal highest intelligence?

Not everything looks like evolution. no competing species to human is an evidence that evolution can’t be true.
again I say current evident supporting ET suits ID more.