Intelligent Design: Frist supports it

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ahimsa
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The man is clearly trying to get back in good graces with the Christian right after he shot himself in the foot with stem cell research. Doubt he’ll be our next President.

What is more, you can’t teach theology in a science class.
 
O, the joys of politics… I agree, StCsDavid. Theology has little if any place in science class.
 
IMHO The presentation of ID in schools is not evil. The “big bang” is unproven speculation. Evolution is still a theory that has as many gaps as it does links.

ID is just another way of explaining how life as we know it came about. All of the present theories take leaps of faith. It just depends on whose faith it is based on.
 
The idea that a religious belief be equated to a scientific theory is bizarre. A scientific theory must stand up to great scrutiny and research. Sure it’s a theory, but it’s a scientific theory. The two aren’t the same thing. I have a theory about what happened to Natalee Holloway but it isn’t based on science.

ID is just a smokescreen for people who have a faith that is so shallow, they need to invade science for some sort of validation. Frist was a medical doctor, a scientist. This sort of religious pandering is disgraceful.

Galileo was forced to renounce his conclusions about a flat earth on religious grounds. What’s next?
 
40.png
KathleenElsie:
IMHO The presentation of ID in schools is not evil. The “big bang” is unproven speculation. Evolution is still a theory that has as many gaps as it does links.

ID is just another way of explaining how life as we know it came about. All of the present theories take leaps of faith. It just depends on whose faith it is based on.
Click to expand...
I suppose ID takes a leap of faith from the get go, which takes it out of the measurable world of science. We can study time, space, and the movement of objects to get to the big bang theory. We can study fossiles and the like to support the evolution theory. True, they’re both just theories, but they can have some quantifiable measurments applied to them.

I just don’t think you can teach Christianity in the confines of a science class. God is just way more complex and cannot be measured. Now, if they taught it in a philosophy class, I wouldn’t see the harm there.
 
<< George Will is just too full of himself. >>

And George Will makes a number of good points. Namely,

Intelligent Design is not testable, Intelligent Design is not falsifiable, and therefore not science. Watch the program.

Phil P
 
PhilVaz said:
<< George Will is just too full of himself. >>

And George Will makes a number of good points. Namely,

Intelligent Design is not testable,
Click to expand...

And evolution is?
Intelligent Design is not falsifiable,
Click to expand...
Sure it is. Find something created purely by randomness and you can disprove it. Just as falsifiable as evolution is anyway.

George Will should stick to baseball and Cal Thomas to jazz, they are not biologists. 🙂
 
When the Belgian priest and mathematician Georges Lemaître developed the “Big Bang” theory, most scientists, Einstein among them, scoffed at it.

The usual attack was: “Of course he believes in a moment of creation, he’s a Catholic, what else would you expect? He’s letting his theology dictate his science.”

Einstein embraced the theory and apologized to Fr Lemaître after Hubbell explained what the Red Shift meant.

Putting this in that box and this in that is not good for science or theology. There is no danger science will be retarded by teaching ID. None whatsoever. Those who make that claim do so for political reasons.

Many are suggesting if you assume design, science can be more productive. Faraday, Bacon, Newton and others used the Christian idea that the universe makes sense as a premise for their work. Bacon wrote man is fallen spiritually and physicially. Faith can restore some of the loss of the first and science some of the second.
 
40.png
StCsDavid:
I suppose ID takes a leap of faith from the get go, which takes it out of the measurable world of science. We can study time, space, and the movement of objects to get to the big bang theory. We can study fossiles and the like to support the evolution theory. True, they’re both just theories, but they can have some quantifiable measurments applied to them.

I just don’t think you can teach Christianity in the confines of a science class. God is just way more complex and cannot be measured. Now, if they taught it in a philosophy class, I wouldn’t see the harm there.
Click to expand...
**ID IMHO if taught freely is not specifically Christian. Yes, it is what many believe and teach in Christian Churches. Yet the native populations in most parts of the world have their own theory on how it all started. It can do no harm to “mention” that many cultures believe that the universe was not accidental. It is a theory that just says that there could be some higher power(s) that guided the creation of the universe. Then let the children decide, with parental (name removed by moderator)ut, and not be taught that only one theory is the correct true one.

Besides science can be taught w/o using theory (speculation), OR CAN IT?
**
 
David_Paul, It’s significant that a priest developed the Big Bang theory because we were told that religious people hindered scientific inquiry.

It is almost funny that the agnostic Stephen Jay Gould of Harvard substituted Punctuated Equilibrium for classical Darwinism. Despite Gould’s denial, his PE(punk eek)theory is consistent with the biblical creation story of Genesis 1. God’s six days correspond to six geological events. 🙂
 
40.png
David_Paul:
Putting this in that box and this in that is not good for science or theology. There is no danger science will be retarded by teaching ID. None whatsoever. Those who make that claim do so for political reasons.
Click to expand...
Once ID comes up with some science, I will support it being taught in science class. Until then, it doesn’t belong there.

Peace

Tim
 
40.png
Lizzie:
David_Paul, It’s significant that a priest developed the Big Bang theory because we were told that religious people hindered scientific inquiry.
Click to expand...
Who told you that?:rotfl:

Some of the most groundbreaking moments in science have included religious people.

Peace

Tim
 
KathleenElsie said:
**ID IMHO if taught freely is not specifically Christian. Yes, it is what many believe and teach in Christian Churches. Yet the native populations in most parts of the world have their own theory on how it all started. It can do no harm to “mention” that many cultures believe that the universe was not accidental. It is a theory that just says that there could be some higher power(s) that guided the creation of the universe. Then let the children decide, with parental (name removed by moderator)ut, and not be taught that only one theory is the correct true one.

Besides science can be taught w/o using theory (speculation), OR CAN IT?
**
Click to expand...

I suppose when I think about a science class in a K-12 school, I’m thinking of more of the study of empirical data. I’m thinking of the study of that which one can apply the scientific process. To me, that basic discipline is an important skill students need to learn.

Would you teach in a math class that one plus one equals two, but in some cultures it equals three so we need to study that, too? Sure, that’s an absurd example, but IMHO, teaching ID in the science class borders on that.

ID just seems to be more appropriate for a sociology or philosophy class versus a physical science class.
 
40.png
StCsDavid:
I suppose when I think about a science class in a K-12 school, I’m thinking of more of the study of empirical data. I’m thinking of the study of that which one can apply the scientific process. To me, that basic discipline is an important skill students need to learn.

Would you teach in a math class that one plus one equals two, but in some cultures it equals three so we need to study that, too? Sure, that’s an absurd example, but IMHO, teaching ID in the science class borders on that.

ID just seems to be more appropriate for a sociology or philosophy class versus a physical science class.
Click to expand...
Your point about applying scientific process is excellent.

The debate that complex organisms are designed versus occuring at random would be interesting. So I vote to allow the IDers and the evouionaries to go at it.

By the way, how did the evolutionaries prove the primordial soup concept?
 
40.png
Lizzie:
By the way, how did the evolutionaries prove the primordial soup concept?
Click to expand...
First, that would be the abiogenesis crowd, not evolutionists. Second, it has not been proven.

Peace

Tim
 
40.png
Orogeny:
First, that would be the abiogenesis crowd, not evolutionists. Second, it has not been proven.

Peace

Tim
Click to expand...
Can you explain further? Who are the abiogenesis crowd? Is it true or not true that evolutionists proposed the primordial soup concept?
 
40.png
Lizzie:
Can you explain further? Who are the abiogenesis crowd? Is it true or not true that evolutionists proposed the primordial soup concept?
Click to expand...
The primordial soup that I think you are asking about deals with how life began (ie from a primordial soup). The study of how life arose from non-living compounds is called abiogenesis and is a field of study all of it’s own.

Evolution doesn’t depend on how life started. Evolution describes how life has changed over time to become what we see today.

Peace

Tim
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top