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 can’t be taught in school. And there’s 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 school’s 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 wasn’t 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
Because of the damage it does to real science
Whatever one believes relative to the very start of life, as we think of it, I don’t see how ID damages science at all. If anything, science has been damaging itself for some time, because like senators who fail to husband the powers of the states they should be protecting, scientists have too often forsaken scientific methodology for the more popular, more lucrative paths of fame and money.
If science, as related to this subject, is so overwhelming, ID cannot possibly be a threat. All that’s required is for “science” to answer the question of how we first got here. And it evidently cannot in uncertain terms. If that is the case, the question is still open to thought, argument, study, and serious speculation. That’s the scientific way.
None if you don’t want to.
Have you ever read the Bible? A.W. Tozer suggested that what we call physical “laws” are actually phenomena, put into place for the present time for God’s purposes. They are subject to suspension at His pleasure.
Genesis 8:22 While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease.
Hebrews 1:3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;
I like Tozer’s suggestion.
No, it isn't. The only branch of the federal government permitted to pass laws is the Legislative. The "law" you refer to is one passed by the USSC without the proscribed amendment process.
It really isn't a threat. It's a tiny fart in a very big hurricane. The principle is dangerouse however.
Nice dodge, Soliton but it’s beneath you to offer such a reply.
Just because you disagree with the process of judicial review, doesn't invalidate it. I'm sure you accept it when it supports your beliefs though.
I didn’t know you were here (or maybe I did and forgot). You’ve been here longer than I have. :)
So you’re for usurping the Legislative Branch of our government?
I'm not sure because it's a deeply complicated question. I don't think the federal government has any constitutional authority over education at all, but they've seized it there as well as just about everywhere else.
Can the Supreme Court hold that the teaching of religion in public schools is a violation of the First Amendment? Yes, because they did.
So I don't know how to give you a straight answer to your question. The best I can do is to say, "no, but my opinion doesn't count."
I'm sure you accept it when it supports your beliefs though.
As I'm sure you do as well.
Great explanation of what happened millions of years ago. It is very interesting that “science” continues to observe the “data” and make “conclusions” based on that “data.” Then, they view new “data” and make new (and contradictory) “scientific” “conclusions” that contradict the previous “scientific” “conclusions”, which will only last until they view the new “data” which will provide another invalidation and allow them to keep publishing more and more “accurate” papers. It will be interesting to see the next great explanation. I am waiting with bated beath.
Good lord. You oppose the Scientific Method because it allows for new evidence to alter previous conclusions?
Why are you so insecure that you are unwilling to change your mind based on new experiences or evidence?
You need to belong to some cult where somebody tells you how it is, you believe it, and that settles it.
Sounds like you’re saying fedgov grabbed those powers without Constitutional permission. I agree that they have done that, but I believe it’s one of the largest contributors to the collapse of the Republic.
Many evolutionists disagree with that, and would prefer that fedgov keep traditional religion from causing them any problems in their quest to enshrine evolution as part of the State religion.
But I disagree with you on one touchy issue that you brought up. I believe that if the people were not dependent on fedgov to control their lives, and if fedgov had not grabbed all of those powers not allowed by the Constitution, there would be no reason to fear public Islamic schools being established, as they would never pass muster on the local level. But that’s an opinion.
No, I don’t oppose the scientific method. I oppose a method that is constantly revising/correcting its own admittedly flawed prior conclusions claiming the high moral ground and that they should receive preferential treatment and be the basis for educating our children and setting our public policies.
Are you calling the teachings of the Bible, that Jesus claims is the word of God, a cult?
Luke 21:33 Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away.
I simply find the words of God, and the conclusions of Scripture far more consistent and substantive than the constantly changing statements of “science.”
When I went before a grand jury in Gregg County, Texas no book was offered for me to be sworn in on.
I don’t think you and I disagree about the federal government overstepping into what may or may not be taught at the school district level. I beleive, as I think you do, that it’s local decision, or at least should be.
Where I think we might disagree is whether a belief in evolution necessitates a belief in atheism.
That is most definitely not true. I, and many of my friends, believe the evidence for evolution, and we also believe in God and are Christians. We are not Young Earth Creationists, to be sure, but that doesn’t equate to atheism. It’s a non-sequiter.
I’m not calling Christianity a cult. If you’re a biblical literalist, fine. That still doesn’t mean you belong to a cult.
I just don’t understant your objection to science which actively seeks to change its understanding by gaining new information.
If you don’t want your kids to be exposed to science, homeschool them. Keep them away from that evil science.
I assume your reference to paxil (which I had to look up) was intended to be an insult.
I was merely responding to your post 93 which stated:
“Truth however works”
You then went on to say: “Supernatural beings exist on the fringe of our knowledge, like when old maps uased to put “they be monsters there” in uncharted territory; and they are constantly being pushed back by science with new discoveries. When the pope was shot, he went to the hospital and survive through the science of medicine...When put to the test, we all use science first because it works.
So you injected the pope (whom I don’t follow) into the discussion.
Jesus Christ changed my life with His truth. Is science going to invalidate that (through your new discoveries)?
Who says we all use science first (besides you)? Is sceince going to resurrect me? Or give me a reason to love my neighbor? etc.
Morals don’t occur in a vacuum. Adults in our culture need morals more that they need a scientific education. Why would we allow a mandatory education system to address one, the scientific, (which implicitly and, too often, explicitly claims moral superiority) while neglecting the other, the moral.
Where do you think morals come from? Darwinianism?
I don’t object to science. I appreciate the advances science has made. Absent science, my life expectance would be much shorter (here).
I object to the conclusions of scientists about origins that stand in direct conflict with the clear teachings of Scripture, which I think any reasonbly objective person will admit happens on a regular basis.
On what authority do these scientists speak?
Or teachers in the classroom?
I do homeschool my children, and science (including the scientific method) is in the curriculum. If I sent them to public school here in San Francisco, they would be learning about a lot more than evolution that the public schools have no business teaching, particularly at taxpayer expense.
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.