I have studied it, but you have only my assertion to rely on. And yes, I agree that ID=creationism, and therefore not science. Invoking the supernatural immediately renders it non-scientific. Which is all right, just not in a science class.
Link? It’s in the decision — the entire case, as well as the motivation and resolve of the board. You said you read it. The intent of the board, aside from reading the statement, was to teach creationism (here, called intelligent design) and require the companion, creationist textbook alongside the standard scientific one.
I accept people at their word. Is there some scientific theory involved as described by the scientists I’ve heard speak about it? Is it interesting theory that has any merit at all? To me invoking the supernatural certainly hurts the overall theory, but that doesn’t mean there may not be something to be learned from their research.
What the board hoped for and did are two different things. The ecolution textbook was used in the classroom for instruction. The ID book was only available in the library if the students wanted to take a look…not mandated.
Really now how does intent invalidate something. I shouldn’t matter their intent. If the case has merit it should be decided on its merits not on intent.
Key point made here by wanerious. I submit only emperical science be taught in science class. *** Anything ***else should be removed and put into another class description.
Ahhh! Now we are getting somewhere. Good post!
The most often cited line of reasoning by ID proponents is that of “irreducible complexity” — that some systems may be boiled down to a list of components that, should any of them be removed or changed, the system would no longer function. The analogy most often cited is the mousetrap. Removing any critical part leaves it incapable of catching mice. In biological systems, Behe (the champion of this argument) points towards the bacterial flagellum and the blood clotting process as being irreducibly complex. Unfortunately, these are shaky claims, since they really just depend upon a lack of imagination. All one must do is report one counterexample of a system that has the same function, yet lacks a critical part. Really, all one must do is just imagine such an evolutionary pathway, and the counterexample is made. For both of the above, however, counterexamples have been found in the last 10 years to invalidate his claims. To be sure, investigating almost any claim can yield interesting results. But the methods we use to answer these questions are scientific ones. Sure, it was an interesting idea, but it has been asked and answered. We ought not still teach them as unsolved mysteries.
Absolutely. I have no problem with this. It is, in fact, what I do in my classes. But I don’t posit non-scientific assertions as substitutes for scientific theories.
Interesting comment. We probably have the same beliefs
.
There are tests you can attempt to do, but you need to know what you are testing for.
No, I think your wrong there on that science is about everything that is true. Science makes use of a certian methode and uses emperical reasoning.
Intent matters a great deal and I was responding to the idea that people were jumping at the ID=creationism as though there were no basis for it. In fact, there is quite a bit of evidence that the ID people are really just proponents of creationism being taught in public schools. They have been forestalled by the Supreme Court and are now trying it with new packaging.
Now I think where the fundamentalist get most up and arms is that you jump from ID is really just creationism. I think that they are thinking why don’t you then make the jump from teaching evolution = creatorless universe, cause I’m sure the ones who believe in a creatorless universe are in favor of teaching evolution. They feel the feel the schools are in a wink-wink realtionship too.
Do you think you donate quite a sum of money and can be rude and break rules in this forum without being corrected?
This is not a valid arguement.
ET only exists for example Adam and Eve are blacks/whites(or some other race) now people all over the world have various skin and hair colors. however this isn’t the topic being discussed. what’s discussed is only limited to Darwinism which implies no God’s involvement in the creation of human.