Posted on 10/07/2005 4:03:19 AM PDT by gobucks
Tell me how "we descended from apes" is testable.
You think God is "nonsense"? Many, many would disagree with you. I know you think you have all the answers, but you don't - no one does. What are you afraid of?
Sure does. You have perfectly defined youself.
Put that twist in your mental mirror and take a long, hard, introspective look.
I am a very recent convert to ID, not on religious grounds, but on scientific grounds.
Evolution can explain how the snail darter (or any other species) has changed, during the long history of the snail darter's existence on Earth.
Evolution might even explain some differences between very closely related species or groups, as though they are actually one species or group, where eons of existence in very different environments have led to different groups emphasizing certain traits and deemphasizing other traits. Like the differnces between South Asian and African elephants.
But evolution has no answer, in earth's records (fossils and such) for how the snail darter (or any other species) came to exist. There are simply no transitional species in the records, in spite of evolution's theory that the slow change of evolution requires such species to have existed.
The spontaneousness with which species appear together with the complex blueprint and structure of each species, with no direct ancestors, no precedents anywhere suggests that intelligence and not evolutionary change has provided that complexity, that blueprint, that design.
God may even lead us to understand that intelligence some day and participate in its wonders.
Please read what I wrote:
"If there are weaknesses with the way that evolution is taught in school then those need to be corrected. We don't solve the problem by adding more nonsense to the science education of our children."
It's a good thing scientists don't think they can practice law the way some lawyers think they can practice science.
His #3 is particularly egregious.
One reason Islamic countries are such backwaters today is that they let religion trump science and clear thinking.
Too true. I had precisely the same reaction. How is moral relativism a product of moral absolutes?
I don't think you understand Occam's Razor.
"just what is the purpose of a 'government school'? I honestly believe it is NOT to get kids to think for themselves or think at all.
In fact, public schools seem to be especially perfect places to minimize the ability of kids to grow their creative tendencies"
This may be the real issue here, the real debate is over the children’s minds, are they to be indoctrinated or do they have the freedom to choose?
"You think God is "nonsense"? Many, many would disagree with you."
That was not my intended meaning. What I consider to be nonsense is the teaching of religion/philosophy as science. Personally, I believe in God and am sympathetic to ID, I just don't think it should be taught as science.
"I know you think you have all the answers, but you don't - no one does."
You seem to know a lot about me. Maybe you have all the answers?
"What are you afraid of?"
Pretty much the same as most people I'd imagine: pain, growing old alone, illness, etc.
So if we teach ID, we will all become Muslims? Quite a stretch but I guess you have to continually think of new arguments against ID.
Ok I can accept why people would not want ID taught in science class but rather a philosophy class, since many don’t regard this as science, , but why make a big deal about it, there are many things in science class that might be better of taught in other disciplines, math and spelling are two examples that always plagued me which had nothing to do wheather I grasped the science or not. So why not become so vocal about a "non-science subject" if that is how ID is percieved?
Somehow I think that it is not agenda to discount ID as a science but to discount ID or the existence of a creator all together, which seems like such a waist of time, since there a so many other things to do in life…
I do not believe you read the article. The author specifically refuted this objection. It is the conceit of the Darwinians to deny the legitimacy of every question that falls outside their myopic position.
We do not know how to define intelligence because the Darwinian choke-hold on scientific thought has not allowed us to develop a scientific model that even asks the question.
Darwinianism has become an antiquated dogma preventing science from moving into areas that it denies, such as intelligence theory.
How can we possible begin to study intelligent design without a scientific definition of "intelligence?" Could you give me such a definition?
You are so right. The debate is what can be pushed on our children and how little control we as parents have over it. The schools promote homosexuality as normal. No surprise they don't want anything remotely connected to God in schools. I have a feeling this isn't really about how concerned everyone is with our children's science education as it is about removing God from every aspect of public life in this country. There would be absolutely no harm in discussing ID with students. Don't you think students have a right to decide what they want to believe? If they find the TOE believable, fine. If they reject it, fine. Many of us learned about evolution and reject it. Many people reject God. You cannot (as much as you would like) force anyone to believe what they don't.
And not terribly afflicted by any common sense.
you are quite welcome...
One of the things the law of unintended consequences may produce in this case is that it will be presented in science classes...and the result will be resentful scientists using the most beautifully sarcastic tone of voice while they read the relevant paragraphs, then follow that with something to the effect of "now let's get down to real science."
Rather than enhancing faith, students will be turned off, thinking only dweebs and feebs would buy that. (yes I've been around high school students)
The absolute last thing I want is the schools interfering the the religious education of my kids. And no, teaching science does not do that unless ones' faith is very, very, superficial.
Pretty much the same as most people I'd imagine: pain, growing old alone, illness, etc.
Amen, my sweet brother.
Personally, I believe in God and am sympathetic to ID, I just don't think it should be taught as science.
If God is central to an understanding of the nature of reality then teaching the works of God is the proper venue of science.
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.