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
Ain’t is a shame that the schools insist on teaching science in science class!
I’d like to discuss the scriptures in that regard with you sometime. I’m convinced millions of years of evolution is not supported by the scriptures.
Yes, I am here —— in that I come in to read headers, then occasionally read some responses to a thread. But I won’t tell if you won’t!
I’d be happy do to so. Amd I’ll do so respectfully.
And crap, I’ll try to spell.
Same here. Going to bed now. I’ll FReepmail you next week.
Sure
2. A natural world that is far bigger and more complex than the universe we've been able to define with very limited knowledge so far. Theories like string theory are beginning to explore the possibility of additional dimensions. Until we fully understand the natural world, how can we claim that any designer necessarily evolved or is Supernatural. Such a claim reeks of arrogance.
If we could detect the spiritual world, would it not then have to be included in the natural world? I believe one day we will have such knowledge.
Would God still be considered "Supernatural" if we had sufficient knowledge about how to detect Him? Is it really appropriate to limit our definition of the "natural" world and resulting scientific discussions to what our current theories can define very well. To do so is to limit investigation.
What if Coopernicus had accepted the natural world definition of his day which was defined by the geocentric system and not investigated further? Such is exactly the limitation placed on science by Evo's attempt to define away all alternatives.
explain please. How did it come to be?
It was naturally occuring.
Yeah, then they wouldn't just say you were crazy, they'd espouse it as dogma with fervent zeal and hatred of all things religious that by comparison makes people who follow religion look tame.
ID is a relatively new term. But scientists motivated by the belief that the world was designed have made tremendous contributions and were often motivated by their belief in design. In fact most fields of science were founded by scientists who believed in a Designer.
It would be nice if they limited it to that, and stopped teaching religion there.
If in the beginning there was absolutely nothing, physical or spiritual, NOTHING, then please tell me, scientifically, why there is something now.
If there was something, please do tell me what it was, how you know it, and where it came from...if anywhere.
I loved Ben Stein’s movie, and no matter what you believe, you should be outraged about the attack on academic freedom.
Welcome to FR! and your very first posts ever on this thread, you must find Expelled very important to dedicate your time to only this one subject in all of your time at FR. and it was great that Danica won!
Not a job for science. Look up “Science”.
There is no sumo wrestler in my fridge.
There is no 1000$ bill in my wallet.
There are no perpetual motion machines.
Fnord, the bird that ate the Eiffel Tower, does not exist.
Good one! :-)
Sorry though it doesn't negate my point that science can not prove a negative. To prove, as in your example that sumo wrestlers do not exist, would require you to search the universe looking for a sumo wrestler. While you were looking in in one galaxy, the sumo wrestlers could have just left and be one galaxy ahead of you. Besides sumo wrestlers aren't God.
There are at least two problems with proving God doesn't exist:
1. No one defines God in enough detail to find him. 2. If you did define him, he is supernatural and can change the next second, so you would be looking for the wrong thing.
God had defined Himself in Scripture.
And He doesn’t change.
BTW, people find Him everyday, and their lives are transfomed forever.
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.