Hello, I'm starting "slow": Intelligent Design and its implications

[Rurudyne]

"Outright fantasy" ... like the version of evolution we teach in k12 as if it were the real state of the theory? I've always wondered what was accomplished (or who benefits) by teaching a quaint myth of evolution in the form of ideas sometimes so obsolete that they are laughable.

I suppose it is cheaper to print bad textbooks rather than good.(Now, where's that wink gif?)

As for philosophy ... too pretentious for me, I'll stay a Standup Philosopher.

[Rurudyne]

True.

And maybe this is why we still teach Darwin's juggernaut ... it conditions kids to think about the world in a way that God is optional. That it is currently bad science may not matter by comparison.

[RightWhale]

Evolution is a method. Teachers and journalists refer to it as a theory, which is perhaps as Darwin and his contemporaries thought of it. As such, evolution is the province of philosophy moreso than of science. As for science, evolution makes things very difficult if the intent is to figure everything out about the world we can see. ID would make true science as we commonly envision it possible. It's a paradox unless we think of science as engineering.

[Wil H]

Evolutionists reject the theory of intelligent design, they claim that natural selection is the survival of the species based on prevailing conditions leading to dominant succesful attributes coming to the fore through natural selection.

If you now claim there was some divine intervention in this process you no longer have "evolution" as the sole mechanism of man's development.

On the other hand, Creationists can argue that a higher being created the conditions for man to evolve.

[Wil H]

Your comment is totally obtuse, What has "Lazy Mary" got to do with anything?

[taxesareforever]

A good reason you should stay far away from a science classroom, or anything having to do with one.

Not to worry about that. If I want to know something about science I just tune in to Institute for Creation Research. Don't have to weed thru theories, guesses or just plain bunk at that site.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Not to worry about that. If I want to know something about science I just tune in to Institute for Creation Research. Don't have to weed thru theories, guesses or just plain bunk at that site."

Or science. Must work out great for ya! :)

[taxesareforever]

"Reason is the greatest enemy that faith has: it never comes to the aid of spritual things, but--more frequently than not --struggles against the Divine Word.... Martin Luther" Here we see evidence that even intelligent men can say stupid things because they don't speak as well as they should.

I don't consider what Luther said to be "stupid". I believe it to be true. Reason does not convince anyone of spiritual things. Only the Holy Spirit can do that. Reason cannot comprehend the spiritual. If it could, then it could be said that faith in God is of oneself, which is totally false.

[Rurudyne]

"Evolution is a method. Teachers and journalists refer to it as a theory, which is perhaps as Darwin and his contemporaries thought of it. As such, evolution is the province of philosophy moreso than of science. As for science, evolution makes things very difficult if the intent is to figure everything out about the world we can see. ID would make true science as we commonly envision it possible. It's a paradox unless we think of science as engineering."

I would counter that it is naturalism that is the philosophy. Intelligent design can play a positive role IF that role is to give cover to scientist to admit that they don't know what they don't know.

As for what's taught in the classroom, I'd have no problem with giving kids a glimpse of what actually passes as the theory of evolution ... however, I'd prefer to see the money spent teaching (for example) kids how to understand lawyer-speak (their "monopoly" over the language of law being the basis for the profession's excessive power). That could have a truly transforming effect on our society.

[Rurudyne]

I see your point.

Luther was careless in the words he chose. Nothing more. That carelessness caused the statement to become senseless because it contradicted itself. So "senseless" is probably a better description than "stupid."

Well, I gress I've proved I'm just an ordinary man on account of my own carelessness.

(can anyone tell me how to make smiley faces work here? I could really use a ":)" right here)

[taxesareforever]

I believe we be on the same page. Nice chatting with you.