Posted on 04/20/2008 8:49:48 AM PDT by Soliton
Intelligent Design is of no scientific value in determining the origins of life in the universe. A designer would have to be supernatural (i.e. not subject to the laws of physics) or natural and subject to those laws. If the designer is natural in origin, then it would have to have been designed by another designer again supernatural or natural. Ultimately come to an original designer that either evolved from a lower state of matter, or was created by a supernatural being. You will note that this is back to where we started. Science does not deal with supernatural phenomena by definition. Scientifically, the only answer is evolution. ID, however, is really about the cosmology of the Book of Genesis anyway, but if that is admitted, it cant be taught in school. And theres the rub.
The term Intelligent Design was adopted by the Discovery Institute, the originator of the ID movement, and a non-profit company that was incorporated specifically to get the story of Genesis taught in public schools (as specifically stated in the incorporation documents). To that end a Creationist textbook was published called Of Pandas and People.
In 1987, The Supreme Court of the United States ruled that teaching creationism in public schools violated the separation of church and state in Edwards vs. Aquilard.
In a similar later case, Kitzmiller vs. The Dover Area School District involving the schools acquisition of Of Pandas and People, it was proven in court that the publishers and the people who financed the purchase lied in depositions when they stated that Intelligent Design wasnt just another term for Creationism. They did this by showing that dozens of passages in the pre-1987 Edwards vs. Aquilard copies of the book used Creation, while later versions substituted Intelligent Design in its place.
The entire Intelligent Design movement is a dishonest, legalistic Trojan horse specifically intended to teach creationism in public school even though it is against the law.
Complete transcripts of Kitzmiller vs. Dover can be found here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/kitzmiller_v_dover.html
I don't know where you get this stuff. The fact that evolution addresses the changes between forms of life and not the origins of life itself isn't exactly a state secret.
Do you believe the Constitution forbids religion being taught in public schools? Did you go back thread and read my post #153? That’s the source of my reasoning WRT this issue.
Before 1963, was there ever a school district that became a 100% Islamic district? Today, would graduates of such a school system be able to pass entrance tests for college?
Science can explain some things. It can't explain others. It's the theists, not scientists, who can't stand "I don't know" and need anything wrapped up in a neat little package with a bow. For scientists, an unanswered question is just another line of inquiry (and possibly another grant proposal).
We would be living in an ignorant and benighted world if everyone accepted "in jumps God to fill the gap" and stopped further research. "In jumps God" has been used over the centuries to explain natural phenomena that were later explained scientifically. Had that research ceased, we would never have been able to limit the spread of disease, for starters.
What causes lightning? God. What spreads Malaria? God. Where do we get fire? God. But this time, when the creationists say God explains it and science should butt out, we're to simply accept that they're right for the first time?
So are you saying the truth (and peace) Jesus brought to my life when I surrendered my life to Him is invalid? Are you saying the healing, both physical and emotional brought to millions through faith is invalid, because it can only be scientifically observed, and not scientifically explained?
I do believe a God of order (as the founders of the scientific method did) created a universe of order, and that through studying His universe we could learn more how to glorify God and help our fellow man.
I reluctantly think that that public schools should stay out of the religion arena entirely.
There are plenty of private schools that are not so restricted.
I don’t have a problem with any religious course being offered as an elective in public schools. Even Islam.
But it must be an elective and nobody forced into taking a religious course at all.
That’s not the school’s job, which they would do badly in any case.
Name calling in the name of God?
Could you please explain to me how the laws of physics support evolution?
Or how we have scientifically demonstrated macro-evolution?
If you can’t, or don’t, then why are you supporting teaching macroevoultion under the guise of science at taxpayer expense?
It is established law of the land arrived at by the accepted process. My opinion and your opinion doesn't matter.
Where do you get THAT from? ID explicitly does not mention God or Christ. I posted about ID and haven't mentioned Jesus once. We need lots more paxil.
"Strongly guarded as is the separation between Religion & Govt in the Constitution of the United States, the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history."
James Madison, Detached Memoranda ca. 1817, W. & M. Q., 3d ser., 3:554--60 1946
--http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendI_religions64.html
Have we demonstrated macro-evolution actually happened? Please give examples.
And so the game continues. You can't get funding to do it. Therefore it doesn't get done. Therefore the high priests say there is no evidence. Therefore there is no funding.
In less polite circles it would be called a circle jerk. Of course, you and the other priests seem ok with that reasoning.
Allow the scientific evidence to begin with. Since you don't, just admit you won't and quite the charades.
You are very welcome. Don't be a stranger
So you are FOR the establishment of a state religion?
Whether public schools should or shouldn't stay out of the religious arena, it's not properly a federal power to dictate that to the local schools. Do you disagree with that?
So it's about funding? That's the same argumrnt the embryonic stem cell people use. Research can't be done without taxpayer funding. Why on earth is it the responsibility of anyone to pay for your research?
When you take the oath in a court of law, on what book do you place your hand?
No.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.