Why is Intelligent Design not offered in schools?

  • Thread starter Thread starter kyleforu
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Gilbert Keith:
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.
Click to expand...
I don’t know if you are responding to me, but if you are, you totally missunderstood what I was saying.
I am a Catholic (not a protestant), and I fully adhere to the Vatican statement on evolution. I wrote that Intelligent Design (which is not a part of Vatican statement, it is a protestant based alternative to creationism) is not a scientific theory and therefore it should NOT be taught in schools. I think most of the people here are in agreement with that.
 
40.png
Melchior:
As a biologist you should know the big difference is that Macro-evolution has never been observed.

It is a big deal because it comes down to blindly accepting something that has been repeated often ebnough to give it credibillity. If it is not observable, which macro-evolution is certainly not - beyond a theory that it could be, though has never been to date, then it has no more of a claim to science than identifying patterns that suggest design. The problem is you take what has been observed and come up with a theory that it could happen on a completely different scale without having the same observable proof that you do for intra-species mutation. If a theory goes dacades and decades without being supported it is a failed theory. That is how the rest of science works. Macro-evolution is taken on faith, not science.

(now someone is going to post a link to TalkOrigins that still avoids this central question - where is the obervable evidence? - at the site evidence is a relative word)

Mel
Click to expand...
By that logic, we should have no belief in the existance of (1) Black holes (which cannot by their nature be directly observed, but can be indirectly observed through their effects), (2) The events of Genesis 1 and 2 (which could not be observed, as there were no people to observe them), or even in (3) the concept of the Trinity, which is not directly observable, but taken wholly on faith.

Now, the difference between (1) and (2) & (3) is that (1) can be indirectly observed. (2) and (3) are taken wholly on faith. Like black holes, macroevolution can be indirectly observed. It is seen in the speciation of Darwin’s finches, it is seen in the fossil record (for truly, no one yet has found apatosaur fossils in the Holocene Epoch, nor have plesiosaurs been found in the Devonion Period), and it can be seen in the genetic codes when comparing *any *groups of species. Hence, DNA-based cladograms. In fact, by Occam’s Razor, it should logically follow that macro-evolution can occur simply because we observe micro-evolution, and no-one yet has posited a scientific mechanism that would act as a barrier between micro- and macro- (so-called) evolution. Without that barrier, we must assume that such speciation can, in fact, occur.

Pax,
Alberich
 
40.png
Melchior:
I saw no evidence in the traditional meaning of the word. Name one, just one transitional species that has been obvserved. You are just playing with definitions now to fit your purposes. I am sure it is not intentional, but it is what is being done.

Mel
Click to expand...
Mel,

Step back and think for a minute–I think you are the one that is playing with words, albeit unintentionally. Unless we (as scientists or religious, either way) can see the future, we cannot know how a species will look in ten million years. We can only see the now and the past, as determined from the fossil record and DNA. For this reason, it is an error to ever term an extant species as transitional, that assumes a telos that we cannot know.

Pax,
Alberich
 
Gilbert Keith:
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?
Click to expand...
I grew up Unitarian, but I currently go to a Methodist church. Your characterization of Unitarians is inaccurate. Most have very similar beliefs to any number of other denominations, but didn’t “fit in” anywhere else. I like to frequent the Catholic boards to learn more about Catholicism — I enjoy reading the Catholic Encyclopedia entries and feel I have a lot of theological common ground with the Vatican. Unfortunately for me, there are those here in this community (like you, frankly) that remind me very much of my fundamentalist Protestant friends. But I suppose that’s true of any large group.
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.
Click to expand...
You strike me as a very fearful fellow.
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.
Click to expand...
Not even on my top 100 threats. There are far more serious concerns in the world. Is there any evidence that the numbers of atheists is growing? The stats I’ve seen reflect a fairly constant number of church-goers from 1950-present. Is our moral well-being under some new and ominous threat?
 
Thank you for clarifying that you used to be Unitarian Universalist. I think you still are in many ways but you may well be on the road to Rome. I do believe you have a long way yet to go. I’m obviously not one of your escorts.

Some day I pray it will dawn upon you that your rosy view of atheism is ill founded.

God bless. May the Holy Spirit fill you with wisdom.

Gilbert
 
Gilbert Keith:
Thank you for clarifying that you used to be Unitarian Universalist. I think you still are in many ways but you may well be on the road to Rome.
Click to expand...
Unlikely, though possible.
Some day I pray it will dawn upon you that your rosy view of atheism is ill founded.
Click to expand...
I don’t know what gave you the impression that my view of atheism is “rosy”, but it’s just another view, one that I don’t share.
God bless. May the Holy Spirit fill you with wisdom.
Click to expand...
A continual prayer. Merry Christmas to you and your family.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top