[staytrue]

Why should anyone study creationism or intelligent design ?
It has no use.

At least evolution (even if flawed or even totally wrong) is useful from the stand point of comparetive anatomy, genetics and population dynamics.

Intelligent design merely says, "god did this", end of discussion. It is just not useful.

[USMA83]

These disciplines are the exclusive realm of evolution??
really.

[mamalujo]

It is the same study of science but in Creation we know where we came from.

[MoGalahad]

Maybe you should consider changing your handle because you just said something untrue. Creationists do not stop at "god did this". It is simply our philosophical foundation and starting point, just like yours is apparently that there is nothing but sensory experienced nature, i.e., 'naturalism'.

[Dataman]

At least evolution (even if flawed or even totally wrong) is useful from the stand point of comparetive [sic] anatomy, genetics and population dynamics.

Comparative anatomy needs evolution like a rocket needs a sofa.

Genetics needs evolution like Ted Turner needs Jane.

Population dynamics needs evolution like a pencil needs a steering wheel.

[Quix]

So, you are saying the implications of one are very useful and the implications of the other are not useful at all.

Seems rather short-sighted to me.

I believe the implications of Creation/Intelligent design are quite useful.

Alas, intelligent design will be co-opted by the ET scenario toward supporting the globalist government. That's NOT a good thing IMHO.

[G Larry]

How about a semester's worth of the lack of scientific support for evolution?

[ggekko]

"Intelligent design merely says, "god did this",...."

Teleology (the assumption of purposiveness) has been the most scientifically productive metaphsyical assumptions in the history of science. It is, in fact, the foundation of modern science. J. Robert Openheimer, the father of the atomic bomb, has said that "medieval Christian Scholastics laid the foundation for modern science through insistence upon the orderliness and improvability of Nature".

The assumption of purposiveness is a metaphysical assumption; it is still up to the experimental scientist to seek that empirical mechnisms that explain purposive behavior. The notion that there are externally verifiable scientific laws is derived from Christian ideas about God giving two revelations: the Book of God and the Book of Nature. The idea that externally veriable and unchanging scientific laws exist is a Christian idea developed by Christians. This idea does not exist in any other World Religion or culture.

The evolutionary assumption of complexity through random processes has led to dead ends in a number of scientific areas. "Junk DNA" was thought to be discarded and useless DNA information no longer needed by the evolutionary process. Evolutionary researchers gave up trying to explain the origin of these seemingly inactive DNA sequences. Recently researchers in the teleogical-ID camp have discovered that a number of the "junk DNA" sequences are not "junk" after all and perform important cell regulation and repair functions. This is a clear example of the teleogical-ID camp producing important new scientific knowledge while the evolutionary had created anti-knowledge using the same raw data.

Most scientific classes in high school when discussing biology convey the idea that all science started with Darwin. This notion is indefensible and ahistorical. Students in secondary school should be allowed to know the absolutely foundational role that teleologists played in the development of science.

There is a reason this is resisted so strongly by the old guard scientific esatblishment. When the case for evolution is presented evenhandedly it is astonishly weak and would be less likely to believed. Bureaucrats at NSF and other publicly funded scientific organizations know that if the public were to come to understand how a thinly disguised propaganda operation has been in place since the Scopes trail to prop up a highly speculative scientific theory that there would be a large backlash against these organizations and their public funding. That accounts for the hysterical "let's rally around the flag boys" tone of many of these pronouncements from NSF and other organizations.

If ID theory was as ridiculous as its oponents suggest they would have no fear about letting it be taught in schools. The miffed, Ex Cathedra tone coming from these groups makes it look like they protest too much.

[AmericaUnited]

Why should anyone study creationism or intelligent design ? It has no use.

Intelligent design merely says, "god did this", end of discussion. It is just not useful.

That's extemely funny!

I've always found it much more educational to study something that was "intelligently designed", rather than some random, accidental mistake mish-mash.

[F16Fighter]

'Intelligent design merely says, "god did this", end of discussion. It is just not useful. '

Science can't figure out how one simple single cell was able to materialize out of non-living matter, but evolution should be taught as "probable" in the classroom?

Until 'Science' can provide a sniff, even one iota of proof that the Universe overcame infinitesimal-to-the-nth-degree odds to "evolve" any life over the millenia -- much less a culmination resulting in homo-sapien, it's fantasy best-case scenerio remains laughable crock of sanctimonious, delusional horse dung.

[gore3000]

Why should anyone study creationism or intelligent design ?
It has no use.

Evolution not only has no use, but it has slowed down scientific inquiry. Evolutionists were completely opposed to Mendelian genetics and even nowadays you can read arguments from moronic evolutionists saying that it is not true in all cases. Evolutionists also delayed the greatest discovery since DNA, that genes are merely factories, and are tightly controlled by DNA elsewhere in the genome to make it do what needs to be done. If genes had no control, no connection to the rest of the genome, to the rest of the organism as moronic evolutionist theory has long postulated, then the complex related processes of our bodies would be going in totally different directions and completely kill us. What science has discovered IN SPITE OF evolution, is that organisms are tightly controlled SYSTEMS which cannot be randomly changed without deleterious consequences. Only the un-scientists of evolution would have proposed such a self-centered, nonsensical proposition as that 95% of human DNA had absolutely no purpose at all and that it was there just to show us that evolution is true. Not only is such a view moronic and unscientific, but it also shows the lack of respect that evolutionists have towards those who they push their drivel on.