So don’t go see it. That’s your choice
Then the Big Bang theory has no scientific value either because once you follow it back to the singularity all known laws of physics fall apart and we are dealing with the supernatural. Should we quit teaching that also?
‘morning, Soliton. :)
While I am not in the ID side of the argument I see things in physiology, microbiology and the absolute math that governs the universe that does make me question the supposed randomness that governs life.
BTW I would argue that intelligent design is a concept as old as natural history, dating back to Plato and Paley, the latter having coined the term design on numerous occasions.
May the Intelligent Designer pass You by in Eternity, at least no logic was wasted on your being.
I would like my children to be exposed to the underlying tenets of Christianity in school. I would like them to be taught the moral lessons that are readily available in The Holy Bible in school. The government penalizes me for this by forcing me to pay for other people’s children to go to government school while paying a second time for my own children to go to school.
This is the issue that it all boils down to. I’m forced at gunpoint to pay for things that are, to me, obviously wrong.
bookmark bump
Just my 2 cents.
ID is a realization (based in part on mathematical reasoning) that neo-Darwinian model of evolution is inadequate model for explaining the observed phenomena of life and its evolution. That is certainly a much healthier attitude toward science than pretending to know what is not known and silencing the doubters using censorship, courts and police.
A designer would have to be supernatural (i.e. not subject to the laws of physics) or natural and subject to those laws.
That's a straw-man. ID doesn't postulate anything about lawfulness of the "designer". It simply says that the observed complexity of life requires far greater level of intelligence and foresight, or far more powerful algorithm than the algorithm of "random mutation" and "natural selection" of the neo-Darwinian dogma. The nature of that additional intelligence/algorithm is an open question that needs to be scientifically investigated.
As to the "laws of physics" as presently understood, that, too need not be held as the final word on the subject. Many among the greatest physicists of 20th century, including Planck, Einstein, Dirac, Schrodinger, de Broglie,... had realized that our present modeling foundation in physics, the quantum fields, are merely an approximate (linearized) computational algorithm for some unknown underlying reality.
If the designer is natural in origin, then it would have to have been designed by another designer –again supernatural or natural.
Not correct. It is perfectly conceivable within ID that some more fundamental physical laws provide mechanisms sufficient to explain composition of computationally more powerful systems from the less powerful ones. Cellular automata, such as Conway's Game of Life, demonstrate that such schemes are at least mathematically possible. Steven Wolfram as well as the scientists associated with the Santa Fe Institute on Complex Systems believe that the vastly greater intelligence responsible for origin of life and evolution may be of this perfectly lawful kind (albeit with laws still largely unknown).
In a similar later case, Kitzmiller vs. The Dover Area School District involving ...
When a "scientific theory" starts using courts and the brute force of State to silence doubters, it's a sure sign that its days are numbered and that its defenders know it.
Bad Premise #1 is that there are only two possibilities, evolution or Supernatural.
Bad Premise #2 is that any Designer either evolved or was designed by a sunernatural being.
Argument by definition. All evidence of design, examination and discussion thereof, is hereby swept away by defining any such designer as Supernatural.
I submit, that God is the only natural being/thing in the Universe. And that the entire Universe is an unnatural creation by the natural God. Thus by the Evo's contorted argument, only God should be taught in Schools and no science, since all design is supernatural.
You are correct. But here's the rub.
If a supernatural agent, in fact, did create the universe and all life therein and science by definition cannot state that fact because it's beyond its scope (by definition), and is then forced (again by definition) to offer up only a naturalistic explanation, then we are left with an explanation that is "scientific" but false and an alternate explanation that is true but not scientific.
Evolution is a theory that is the only acceptable “scientific” theory that is acceptable in accademia. This presents many problems.
1. What happened to “proving” a theory? Remeber a theory is a educated guess given observed phenomina. (unless the definition has been changed to protect the guilty.)
2. What happened to reasoned discourse with respect to offering alternatives in the discussion of a theory?
3. If you ask what the evolutionists say is the origin of life you run into their theories real achelies heel. Namely
life evolved from life that developed from a primordial soup of amino acids into single celular life.
Problem: this is “Spontanious Generation” a spurious Medieval, Greek, and even Egyptian origin of life theory.
So, evolutionists will not allow reasoned discourse, they also put fancy pants on “Spontaneous Generation” and expect to be considered serious science. Not in my life time; “Spontaneous Generation” is as valid a science as turning lead into gold.
ID has no scientific value in determining the origins of life according to the first sentence. What value does evolution have in determining the origins of life and what are the mechanisms? This article has very little value without your answer to this question. If evolution does not determine origins, then what does?
I've never seen the first bit of evidence that God has ever operated outside the laws of physics or mathematics. The impression I've always had is that if you want supernatural, you need to be talking to the evolutionists. Propounding a theory which requires infinite sequences of absolute zero-probability events, now THAT is supernatural.
These evolution threads are retarded. Don’t people have better things to do on a spring Sunday afternoon than argue about this? Aren’t there a lot more important issues in this world? You people (on both sides) are a bunch of freaking weirdos.
And Darwin said (the last page of The Origin of the Species). Please note his reference to the Creator.
“It is interesting to contemplate a tangled bank, clothed with many plants of many kinds, with birds singing on the bushes, with various insects flitting about, and with worms crawling through the damp earth, and to reflect that these elaborately constructed forms, so different from each other, and dependent upon each other in so complex a manner, have all been produced by laws acting around us. These laws, taken in the largest sense, being Growth with Reproduction; Inheritance which is almost implied by reproduction; Variability from the indirect and direct action of the conditions of life and from use and disuse: a Ratio of Increase so high as to lead to a Struggle for Life, and as a consequence to Natural Selection, entailing Divergence of Character and the Extinction of less-improved forms. Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows. There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.”
You’re really upset about this, aren’t you? Why are you so afraid of God? I haven’t seen the movie, and don’t plan to, but it’s just a movie. What’s so bad about having an open mind toward both sides?
I can’t wait to see it!
Darwinian thought is very quaint.
; )
please show the documentation of separation of church and state in the constitution.