Take a look at this FR thread. It’s about Harun Yaha specifically. I stand by my arguments there: IDers are so driven to inject ID into science, they’ll approvingly quote radical Islamic propaganda if they think it advances their cause.
>>>>>>>>> Oh, I don’t doubt there are ID extremists out there, I’m not one of them and I would not use Islam in ANY way, because not only do I not need to, but Islam would be the very last place I’d look to promote SCIENCE theory.
It sounds like you think ID is a good idea because it has a religious component, which undercuts your argument that ID is science.
>>>>>>> You would be completely wrong.
And how should the scientific community respond when an individual or group wants to introduce manifest nonsense into the science curriculum?
>>>>>>>I don’t know, but AGAIN scientists dissent from darwin, and ID isn’t nonsense.
www.dissentfromdarwin.org
My gut feeling though about “nonsense” is it will take care of itself. I don’t see the dissentfromdarwin website promoting astrology though.
To defend ID as science you also have to defend astrology.
>>>>>>>>Not at all...and there may be websites out there that promote astrology but I could simply care less.
That’s what Behe said, and he’s the academic force behind ID.
>>>>>>>> I didn’t notice him here:
www.dissentfromdarwin.org but there are many more SCIENTISTS who disagree with darwinism.
There is no competing scientific theory.
>>>>>>>> Your opinion, again alot of scientists disagree.
How do you go about disproving ID? What observation would result in ID proponents all agreeing that ID is wrong?
>>>>>>>>> I don’t know but until we see censorship and lawsuits end to silence it, we can’t fully know.
That’s what happens every day in science.
>>>>>>>> Nooooo, what we DO see is lawsuits to silence dissenting opinion. Perhaps it would be worthwhile to see ‘No intelligence allowed’ to see what happens in the real world.
But that’s not what we’re talking about here, which is people trying to smuggle unscientific concepts into science class at the middle and high school level: this is manifestly NOT where scientific debate takes place. It appears deliberate: IDers want to expose children who haven’t got the background to evaluate a scientific theory — who are attempting to learn what science is — to a series of claims that are unscientific.
>>>>>>>>> Really? That’s not AT ALL the impression I get here:
www.dissentfromdarwin.org
IN FACT the last thing I see here is religious undertones!
We’re supposed to pretend, I guess. But we’re supposed to pretend they are science in the name of ... what? Fairness?
>>>>>>>>>Ummmm....nooooo, they have REAL DEGREES IN SCIENCE!
It’s called dissent from darwin and it’s a dissent BY SCIENTISTS!
That sounds like affirmative action science to me.
>>>>>>It does if you’re biased I guess.
The other pretext is that to do otherwise would be “censorship.”
Nope the lawsuits kind of confirm that all by themselves.
If you want to see how ridiculous it can get I suggest looking here:
www.catholicleague.org
www.thomasmore.org
www.aclj.org
I don’t think it’s particularly “religious” for schools to have the word Christmas on school calendars, but there’s yet MORE censorship and threats of lawsuits to REMOVE the FEDERAL HOLIDAY Christmas from the school calendar.
Science is not exempt from unobjective godless liberals. PERIOD.
I’m in favor of that sort of censorship.
>>>>>>>>OF COURSE! It fits with your worldview! Howev er it remains very un-American as well as cowardly.
Otherwise, you’d could have people trying to teach Abbott & Costello’s “Seven times thirteen is twenty-eight” routine as mathematics. It’s as close to math as ID is to science.
>>>>>>>>Ridiculous....can you show me a website espousing such math? You know with real mathmaticians with real math degrees?
It is the job of the science community to prevent this.
>>>>>>>>It appears you mean ONLY the godless liberal unobjective scientists and not these scientists:
www.dissentfromdarwin.org
You’re assuming here that science is anti-Christian or anti-God. It’s not. The number of “believers in God” is irrelevant.
>>>>>>>>No, I’m not so much talking about science here as I am INDEED talking about a culture war and survival of the west...there’s one being raged by godless liberals against anything remotely God from within, and those that are dangerously extreme that hijack God to decapitate those that don’t conform and slit throats that do conform but just not in the “correct” ways!
You truly have to be myopic to see that science is somehow exempt from such extremes; while law, education in general, journalism, history etc. are not.
You’re undercutting your own argument. If your objection to ID not being taught in science class is that there’s an anti-Christian agenda at work, it would seem that ID must be in and of itself Christian for your argument to make any sense.
>>>>>> Not at all: try to stay focused on science and not religion and you’ll understand. There can be dissenting OPINION on THEORY...in other words you could have:
1. a person not particularly religious that sees merit in ID
2. a religious scientist that dismisses ID
3. non-religious that accepts evolution
4. religious that dismiss evolution.
My personal belief is God created and evolution is one of His tools.
If evolution can stand alone on it’s own two feet, it will withstand ID, much as Abbott and Costello math will fold to real math. It doesn’t NEED lawsuits and censorship to shut out dissent from fellow scientists.
So … if there were more Muslims than Christians, would that make a difference?
>>>>>>Not where the science is concerned. Frankly, Islam is a pseudo-religious belief system that ALSO can not stand alone to the truth, INDEED what true religion would need to terrorize it’s own as well as others to get them to conform ?????
It’s not that they’re wrong in believing in God, they just misunderstand Him. They’re very VERY wrong in their understanding of Him IMO.
New Testament scripture doesn’t express such extreme faith. God gives us free will and we accept Him or we don’t, but we don’t enforce whole societies to bow to Yahweh or be beheaded. If my daughter married a Muslim man I wouldn’t have my son “honor kill” her.
But because they believe there is a God albeit a MISunderstanding of Him, doesn’t necessarily preclude them from understanding differences in darwinism and ID and getting THAT right, does it? I mean if you were truly objective?
It seems to me Islam would corrupt their view of science, just as it seems to corrupt everything, but this could be said of godless liberals because they have demonstrated to me they’re incapable of objectivity in many MANY areas.
Look...my argument all along is let ID stand next to evolution, and let the chips fall where they may SCIENTIFICALLY! I understand the religious implications, but faith there is no God is just as much a belief system. Personally, I see room for both theories. Perhaps in some instances one has more meit than the other, but let’s indeed look at that!
Science should care less if there’s a Creator or not, let science bear such a thing out on it’s own merits!
I said:
And lest we forget, we didn’t develop into some kind of “Theocracy” that shut down and shut out evolution when kids were not only thinking openly in terms of a creator but actually indeed PRAYED to Him in school!
You reply: Irrelevant.
HUH? This has been YOUR argument all along, so how is YOUR argument irrelevant?
The argument is that religious zealots need not inject ID into science...in effect turning science INTO religion and it is because of these EXACT fears...that I dispel them, that they’re now somehow IRRELEVANT?
Well they are indeed but more accurately I’d say:
UNFOUNDED.
Your logic is as flawed as what you regard as science.