Why is Intelligent Design not offered in schools?

  • Thread starter Thread starter kyleforu
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
wanerious:
Apparently giving you what you ask for is not going to work. We have repeatedly given you instances of one species branching out into others. It has been observed. We’ve told you where & how. That’s as “transitional” as evolution gets.

Since this isn’t working, why don’t you tell us some example of what a “transitional” fossil is? I suspect that you still misunderstand the science. There really is no such thing as a “transitional” fossil — what are you really looking for? What is an example of some observation that you would say, “Aha! Now that is a transitional fossil!”
Who said anything about a fossil? Not me. A fossil can not be observed in the sense we sare using. Why is there no living transitional species or even ahistorical record of them in all of human history? This alone is highly suspect. And why were ancient bats always just bats according to the fossil record? You are confusing random fossils as proof of transitional species. Fossils are not observable phenomena. Your definition of evidence is, respectfully, deficient.

Plus, why do Paleantologists (tons of them) find the evolutionary fossil record so suspect?

I gotta go, I am having lunch with a Piltdown man now. 😉

Merry Christmas,

Mel
 
40.png
hecd2:
40.png
Orogeny:
40.png
mlchance:
Macroevolutionary theory also cannot be falsified. QED.
Seen any horse fossils in Cambrian sediments lately?😉

Peace

Tim *

Or:
  • A solid demonstration that mutational change from generation to generation never occurs, and neither new alleles of existing genes nor new genes ever arise
  • A solid demonstration that the genotype has no effect on the phenotype
  • A solid demonstration that phenotypical characteristics do not affect reproductive success
  • A solid demonstartion that reproductive success does not affect allele frequency or the survival of gene copies in a population
  • A plausible mechanism that prevents populations changing so that they are no longer able to inter-breed
  • A mechanism for limiting the cumulative amount of mutational change across millions of generations (or at least limiting the phenotypical change that can be accumulated)
  • Winged tetrapods (birds, bats), with arms as well as wings, like angels, a very useful design, I would have thought
  • A species of living thing with no gene homologues in the rest of the living world
  • A species of living thing that does not code proteins in DNA
  • No genomic synteny in apparently closely related species
  • No correlation betwreen the phylogeny determined by DNA and the phylogeny determined by phenotypical features
  • No correlation between geography and species distribution
  • Any fossil in a ridiculously early stratum - horses in he Cambrian is but one - whales in the Permian is another - there are countless possibilities, none of which we find
  • A dog giiving birth to a cat, an eagle, a crocodile, a frog, a cod, yeast, an oak tree, or a boabab.
Good luck

Alec
evolutionpages.com
Deafening silence
Alec
evolutionpages.com
 
40.png
Melchior:
What is your point? The ruling was bad law - because it makes suspect those who teach subject that don’t assume atheism for one thing.
Nonsense. The personal views of the teachers have nothing to do with teaching the subject, just as the personal religious (Lutheran) views of the judge have nothing to do with the case.
Perfect example of why public schools have completely failed. Educational freedom no longer exists. The entire public school system is completely secularist and agenda driven and when *misguided parents try to fight back they are the ones who are the activists.
So is it just that the Establishment Clause protects against the advocation of any particular religious belief, or is it just that it’s not yours? Would you rather the schools be non-secular and Jewish? Buddhist? Islamic? one of the Native American flavors? Protestant? Hindu?
The astrology thing does not work by the way, you are trying to make a (not so) subtle comparison between good science, there is evidence of design and order, and something most people think is foolish superstition. BUt most evolutionsist think belief in a creator is akin to such superstition.
That is a terrible misrepresentation. A great percentage of those who respect evolutionary theory are also religious. Where is there evidence of design and order? Scientific evidence? Do you have any? The Discovery Institute doesn’t. The astrology analogy is completely apt. Astronomy is no better a science than evolution.
But I am not worried since it won’t be the kids “educated” in public schools who will be our future leaders in most fields anyway. It will be those with the superior education of private, classical, othher private schools and the homeschooled.
Again, I’m just being honest, but if you’re level of scientific and technical understanding is what to expect from the homeschooled, then I very much fear for them when they compete with those more rigorously schooled.
But it was still a terrible ruling to those who are familiar with the law and the Constitution. It was never a matter for the courts.
Again your legal reckoning is suspect. Not a matter for the courts? It was a slam-dunk violation of the first article in the Bill of Rights. Are all those who disagree with you simply not familiar with the law and the Constitution? You, for example, assert yourself much more familiar with the law and Constitution than Judge Jones? Than all the lawyers on the case? Than the present and former Justices of the Supreme Court, who ruled over precident Establishment cases?
 
40.png
Melchior:
Why is there no living transitional species or even ahistorical record of them in all of human history?
???.. Because they would be classified as simply another species. Why would they be “transitional”? What on earth are you thinking of? Again, what would be an example?
Plus, why do Paleantologists (tons of them) find the evolutionary fossil record so suspect?
Who does?
Merry Christmas,
To you and your family also…
 
40.png
hecd2:
That says it all.

Alec
evolutionpages.com
I think Melchior is saying that he cannot visually observe the process of evolution hence he believes it is not falsifiable.

Merry Christmas, Alec (Thanks for dialoguing with me)
 
40.png
hecd2:
Deafening silence
Alec
evolutionpages.com
Well again, you have a massive amount of data pointing to a conceptual idea. Something was similarly true with Gravity which had an even greater amount of data but turned out to have another conceptual reason.

Until however, that other conceptual idea comes along . . .
 
40.png
MichaelTDoyle:
I think Melchior is saying that he cannot visually observe the process of evolution hence he believes it is not falsifiable.

Merry Christmas, Alec (Thanks for dialoguing with me)
And the point is that he’s wrong, in several dimensions. He’s wrong because we can observe evolution action today and he’s wrong because we can observe the consequences of past evolution in the current world. But, if he’s saying what you suggest, he’s also wrong to try to discount evolution as a scientific theory on the basis of ‘visual observation’ . Not unless he also rejects the evidence for the structure of DNA.

Furthermore I pointed out many ways in which it could be falsified, but no-one has taken me up on them. Melchior’s personal incredulity does not constitute a falsification of the theory.

Have a happy and holy Christmas, Michael.

Alec
evolutionpages.com
 
40.png
MichaelTDoyle:
Well again, you have a massive amount of data pointing to a conceptual idea. Something was similarly true with Gravity which had an even greater amount of data but turned out to have another conceptual reason.

Until however, that other conceptual idea comes along . . .
The info that Alec posted was in response to mlchance who claimed that macroevolution cannot be falsified. Any of those things that Alec posted would indeed, if found, falsify the theory of evolution.

Peace

Tim
 
40.png
MichaelTDoyle:
Well again, you have a massive amount of data pointing to a conceptual idea. Something was similarly true with Gravity which had an even greater amount of data but turned out to have another conceptual reason.

Until however, that other conceptual idea comes along . . .
Not sure what your point is? That Newton’s understandiing was entirely wrong and needs to be thrown on the garbage heap? That science never uncovers truth about the natural world? Not even sure waht you mean by conceptual reason for gravity here.

I was merely responding to the oft-repeated but entirely erroneous cliam that the theory of evolution cannot be falsified. I pointed out a dozen ways in which it could be falsified. I got no takers.

Alec
evolutionpages.com
 
40.png
Melchior:
… A fossil can not be observed in the sense we sare using. Why is there no living transitional species or even ahistorical record of them in all of human history? …
:confused: :confused: :confused: :confused:

all species are transitional species

Merry Christmas everyone

I just can’t do this any more
 
confused: :confused: :confused: :confused:

all species are transitional species

Don’t you see how misleading that is? It is also simplistic.

steveandersen said:
:Merry Christmas everyone

I just can’t do this any more

Ditto. No offense meant in anything I wrote. God bless you. Have a wonderful Christmas.

Mel
 
The bottom line as to why ID will not be taught in public schools is that the public schools system has been taken over by atheists who call themselves by the euphemism “secularists.” That is, they claim to want a separation of Church and State. What they really want is no Church at all.

ID implies a Designer. This is uncomfortably close to religion for atheists who dominate the scientific community and who argue that evolution is not a threat to religion. If they really believed this, they would insist on prefacing every chapter on evolution in every high school biology text with the disclaimer that evolution in any way implies a godless universe. This would go a long way toward pacifying those parents who rightly suspect that the theory of evolution has encouraged atheism among the young as it has encouraged atheism in the scientific community.

But if you tried to put such a disclaimer in biology texts, there would be a deafening howl from the scientific community and a lawsuit from the ACLU, which is also dominated by atheists.
 
Gilbert Keith:
The bottom line as to why ID will not be taught in public schools is that the public schools system has been taken over by atheists who call themselves by the euphemism “secularists.”
Who are all these atheists, exactly, who have taken over the public school system? Can you point them out, or are they perhaps just a convenient demon to blame complex issues on?
That is, they claim to want a separation of Church and State. What they really want is no Church at all.
Well, no Church at all that is espoused by the government, yes. I agree with that.
ID implies a Designer. This is uncomfortably close to religion for atheists who dominate the scientific community and who argue that evolution is not a threat to religion. If they really believed this, they would insist on prefacing every chapter on evolution in every high school biology text with the disclaimer that evolution in any way implies a godless universe. This would go a long way toward pacifying those parents who rightly suspect that the theory of evolution has encouraged atheism among the young as it has encouraged atheism in the scientific community.
Goodness, but these atheists are active folk. They only comprise 3-4% of the population, but you have them dominating not only public education, but the scientific community and some underground movement among the young. My experience amongst my physicist and astronomy colleagues is that only 1 or 2 out of at least a couple of hundred had atheistic views.
But if you tried to put such a disclaimer in biology texts, there would be a deafening howl from the scientific community and a lawsuit from the ACLU, which is also dominated by atheists.
Ah, yes, they dominate the ACLU also. Good thing that the presiding judge in this case is a Christian, or you might have them taking over the Federal Court System. At least we have the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial Branch of governments as well as almost all State and Local branches.
 
Wanerious

I see you are very comfortable with atheists and think they are not a problem at all for our society. Ah, it must be the Christians who are all behind rampant abortion, pornography, homosexual marriage, etc.

ALSO, YOU MIGHT WANT TO REFRESH YOUR POINT OF VIEW BY READING VOLTAIRE"S ESSAY “ON ATHEISM” AS TO HOW THE ATHEIST SENATORS DESTROYED THE ANCIENT ROMAN REPUBLIC!
 
Gilbert Keith:
Wanerious

I see you are very comfortable with atheists and think they are not a problem at all for our society.
You have accurately surmised my position. Nope, they don’t keep me up at night. Their theological ideas don’t affect me or my salvation one whit. Some are even my friends.
Ah, it must be the Christians who are all behind rampant abortion, pornography, homosexual marriage, etc.
This is increasingly off-topic, but please. Atheists are behind abortion? Peddlers of pornography are atheists? Are there any evils that Christians (Catholics) participate in, or shall we just blame other convenient groups? Are homosexual marriage and pornography the worst things we have to worry about in the world? If so, then we ought to be thankful those evil atheists have such low goals. Let’s worry about more substantive things.
 
40.png
Orogeny:
Well, there you go. Let’s all oppose Catholic schools since Hitler and Stalin used them to justify genocide.
Let’s oppose all medical experiments involving humans since medical experiments involving humans occurred in Nazi concentration camps.

Does anyone here think any of the experiments Nazi medical personnel conducted on concentration camp prisoners were:
not science?
science?

Your definition of “science”?

Lifton, Robert Jay. 1986. The Nazi Doctors: Medical Killing
and the Psychology of Genocide
(NY: Basic Books, Inc.,
Publishers), 561pp. On 270:
“Inmates suffered from hunger, nonetheless, and
from the constant uncertainty about “What will it
be this time?” For they had absorbed the
Auschwitz principle that anything is permitted.”

Proctor, Robert N. 1988. Racial Hygiene: Medicine under the Nazis
(Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press), 414pp. On 6:
“The published record of the German medical profession
makes it clear that many intellectuals cooperated fully in
Nazi racial programs, and that many of the social and
intellectual foundations for these programs were laid long
before the rise of Hitler to power. What I want to argue in
addition to this, however (and here I shall be drawing
upon a growing body of recent German scholarship on
this question) is that biomedical scientists played an
active, even leading role in the initiation, administration,
and execution of Nazi racial programs.”

2004 Richard Weikart: “physicians… were committed to a racist eugenics ideology that the Nazis favored”
groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0407120310.7d3f3929%40posting.google.com
 
40.png
Hitetlen:
Very simple. ID is not science, it is religion. Science only deals with falsifyable ideas, that is propositions which can be proven false, which can be tested by experiments. The concept of “Intelligent Design” cannot. That is the reason. Many people believe in astrology. Does that mean that astrology should be discussed? Many people believe that the Earth is about 6000 years old. Does it mean that such a proposition should be included in a science class?
I am a scientist (mathematician), so I can testify that the idea of falsifiability is actually outdated (these ideas about what science is were introduced by Popper). Scientists no longer accept such ideas as working (operative) definitions of science.
Anyway, the best definition of science is this: “Science is the business of scientist, what scientists do” and Intelligent Design is NOT a science (as you correctly point out).
Intelligent design is a “cover name” for creationism (which we all know is quite dumb).
The catholic theology stands quite clear on that issue. God is the creator and everything (except the Word, Christ) was created by God. However, how God chose to conduct the creation process is unknown, it could very well be through evolution. (Or, maybe not)
I think that the position of Catholic Church is at present time the best one available.
Tomas
 
Wanerious

Excuse me for saying so, but you sound very much like a Unitarian Universalist type Protestant, many of whom do not even believe in God. Am I right? If not, which one of the thousands of Protestant sects do you favor?

Increasingly I find Protestants of your stripe able to convince me that Herman Melville was right when he said one must in the end be Roman Catholic or atheist … there is no viable middle ground.

By the way, I also have Atheist friends. That does not stop me from considering the growth of atheism the single greatest threat to the moral well being of America and the world.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top