Another nail in the coffin for Intelligent Design

[bushwacked]

I never will understand why some scientists try so hard to prove God does not exist.

 

1259160[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

:doah:

[montster]

I never will understand why some scientists try so hard to prove God does not exist. Why is it so important to them? The argument was stupid to begin with, proving they can 'find out how bees fly' is no less stupid. It's a great discovery, why ruin it with this crap?

 

1259160[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

they did it because the findings have practical uses. from the article:

 

The scientists said the findings could lead to a model for designing aircraft that could hover in place and carry loads for many purposes such as diaster surveillance after earthquakes and tsunamis.

[Furd]

[tonorator]

i always thought creationism was the leading alternative to evolution. which brings me to my point: ID proponents often try to create a sense that millions of children have no choice but to be brainwashed in school with "theories" of "evolution," as you basically said in your quote. but they have plenty of choices: parents, church, private school, their own curiousity. to me, trying to deny that ID is anything but creationism in a lab coat is what's ridiculous. a judge already has said as much. but if parents are so worried that their children are learning about evolution, then here's my solution: talk to them. don't force a school district to do your job for you.

 

1259175[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

i find it hard not to equate ID to creationism of some sort, and i don't see what the hang up is on the terms. i also don't think teaching evolution is brainwashing - it is one of the leading theories and should be discussed and debated openly, flaws and all. ID/creationism can also be discussed and debated openly as well, flaws and all. and i know it's a dead horse, but this discussion is not the basis for all science and it should not dominate the ciricullum. if we want to give it a dedicated class and leave the science to observations and classifications, that's fine with me too. what we shouldn't have to do is go to court to discuss if it is allowed to be mentioned. that's absurd and close-minded.

 

i'm also with you that if a science teacher starts trying to get kids to accept christ in class, then they are out of there. that is not their job. contrary to popular belief, it is possible to debate this topic without the fear of conversions ... and our kids are smart enough to have the discussion.

[tonorator]

ok - this is a great discussion (i love this stuff), but i have to watch House ... good points everyone.

[tonorator]

one more thing .... this is good reading.

Edited January 11, 2006 by tonorator

[rajncajn]

they did it because the findings have practical uses. from the article:

 

1259185[/snapback]

 

 

 

Admittedly I just glanced thru the article and I sure as hell didn't read thru this entire thread, but it is true. Far too often I hear of scientists coming up wit yet another way to disprove Creationism. Why not just let them believe what they want to believe, provide people with their discoveries & let people make up their own minds. Why does everybody feel the need to force their beliefs on everyone? Can't we all just get along...

Edited January 11, 2006 by rajncajn

[Furd]

You can't prove or disprove creationism.

 

Its religion - not science.

 

Believe it all you want, but don't call it science or equate it with a scientific theory.

 

Teaching science is not "forcing" a belief upon someone.

[rajncajn]

Teaching science is not "forcing" a belief upon someone.

 

1259207[/snapback]

 

 

 

But using science to purposefully discredit creationism is.

 

Edit: I do realize now that this wasn't the intent of these scientists, but as proven by this thread as well as the article it most certainly will be used in that way.

Edited January 11, 2006 by rajncajn

[TDFFFreak]

Why can't you all realize that we are going to push God in science no matter how ignorant we are science.

[bushwacked]

But using science to purposefully discredit creationism is.

 

1259210[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

Science is science...it's not something you make up to discredit something else.

[Guest THEbigred]

i've thought of many things around this topic.  i've wrangled with it ever since i could think straight.  and when i try to consider options and give merit or weight to each, i always have the possibility of a creator/designer right up there with all of the others, as i assume most people do ...

 

1259015[/snapback]

 

 

 

You would think so, but regrettably not.

 

I don't get the problem with ID getting simply a brief mention in science classes, w/the understanding that it is not a "scientific" belief or aspect of evolution, although it does relate to it (PS I'm not freaked out about it not being mentioned either, really). Science says sometimes evolution "just happens," while ID says no, it's guided by (whatever). It's not like ID tries to invalidate science or the theory of evolution like some chicken littles seem to think.

 

 

 

You can't prove or disprove creationism.

 

Its religion - not science.

 

Believe it all you want, but don't call it science or equate it with a scientific theory.

 

Pls explain what you mean by "creationism," as this word seems to be getting stretched and twisted a lot these days. You do at least realize that "creationism" and "ID" are hardly the same thing right?

 

Assuming so....absolutely. I don't think anyone who has a basic grasp on all of the above is doing so though.

 

 

Teaching science is not "forcing" a belief upon someone.

 

1259207[/snapback]

 

 

 

Teaching ID AS A POSSIBILITY isn't "forcing" a belief on someone either. It's simply posing an alternative explanation to something which science hasn't really explained.

[Meat Face]

I don't get the problem with ID getting simply a brief mention in science classes, w/the understanding that it is not a "scientific" belief or aspect of evolution...

1259246[/snapback]

 

 

You're right. And why stop at creationism when we could list at least one million things that MIGHT be the true explanation even though there's no evidence for it! For example, it's possible, and unproven that it's not true, that the earth may have been created when Frank and Dweezel Zappa simultaneously sharted in each others mouths in a parallel universe 10 billion years ago. I think we should propose this as an explanation, in addition to Creationism/ID. And we should definitely propose it in public high school science class, because the Zappa explanation is a possible alternative to evolution.

[Furd]

You would think so, but regrettably not.     

 

I don't get the problem with ID getting simply a brief mention in science classes, w/the understanding that it is not a "scientific" belief or aspect of evolution, although it does relate to it (PS I'm not freaked out about it not being mentioned either, really).  Science says sometimes evolution "just happens," while ID says no, it's guided by (whatever).  It's not like ID tries to invalidate science or the theory of evolution like some chicken littles seem to think. 

Pls explain what you mean by "creationism," as this word seems to be getting stretched and twisted a lot these days.  You do at least realize that "creationism" and "ID" are hardly the same thing right?

 

Assuming so....absolutely.  I don't think anyone who has a basic grasp on all of the above is doing so though.

Teaching ID AS A POSSIBILITY isn't "forcing" a belief on someone either.  It's simply posing an alternative explanation to something which science hasn't really explained.

 

1259246[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

You admit that it isn't science, yet you think it should be brought up in science class?

 

You think an "alternate explanation" to scientific theory should be brought up in a science class?

 

That's crazy.

 

Creationism and intelligent design both involve the belief that a magical being (no disrespect intended - use surpernatural if you like) that we have never seen and whose existence we cannot prove or disprove created life as it is now or guided it along as it evolved. Both involve religious beliefs. Perhaps they are not exactly the same thing, but they are in the same pew, so to speak.

 

You're the chicken little. You think that teaching science is an effort to disprove god, and that somehow a science class is going to discourage people from believing in him/her/it. That's silly. If people want to belive in a god, they will, no matter what some scientist or science teacher says.

[rajncajn]

Science is science...it's not something you make up to discredit something else.

 

1259226[/snapback]

 

 

 

I didn't say people were making it up. I said people were using it for the purpose of discrediting creationism. Big difference there and I just can't see the point in it.

[bushwacked]

I didn't say people were making it up. I said people were using it for the purpose of discrediting creationism. Big difference there and I just can't see the point in it.

 

1259418[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

 

Can you please explain your statement?

[rajncajn]

Can you please explain your statement?

 

1259424[/snapback]

 

 

 

What's there to explain? I don't understand why many people (specifically the article writer) use science for the purpose of discrediting creationism and to a higher extent God. Why anybody who does not believe would waste the time and energy trying to discredit it is beyond me. Which part didn't you understand?

 

Maybe I should go back to staying out of discussions about religion.

[BrainySmurf]

People who want to teach ID in high school science class don't understand how science curriculum is developed. You don't get to just insert whatever you want into the high school science curriculum because it's important to you and you're willing to make a big political stink about it. Stuff that's taught at the high school level is there because it's become well accepted over many years.

 

If you want ID to be taught at the high school level, then prove its validity in scientific circles. The method for doing this seems to be to bring up scientific conundrums that ID proponents think are not explainable by evolution. This is a legitimate approach, and scientists can spend time researching them or ignore them as they wish.

 

I do want to point out a real contradiction in the position of ID proponents: they say 4.5 billion years is not long enough for natural selection to create complex beings like humans, but scientists should be able to explain every step of that evolution in 150 years, or else it can't be true.

[1stimer]

intelligent design is a belief system dressed up as science.

 

1258916[/snapback]

 

 

 

sorry if this was already mentioned, but it seems as though evolution is a belief system dressed up as science too. someone has to believe that evolution is true because nobody was around millions or billions of years ago when some one celled organism decided it wanted to be more complex ... or when some big explosion happened that caused all the working complexities ... go over to iraq and see how many good working complex things came out of any bombs that went off there, just rediculous.

[bushwacked]

What's there to explain? I don't understand why many people (specifically the article writer) use science for the purpose of discrediting creationism and to a higher extent God. Why anybody who does not believe would waste the time and energy trying to discredit it is beyond me. Which part didn't you understand?

 

Maybe I should go back to staying out of discussions about religion.

 

1259435[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

Well first of all, the scientific method uses data and observations to develop hypothesis, theories, and sometimes even draw conculsions or establish fundamental laws. Religion has no place in Science because religion it is typicallly compromised of things like faith and spirituality. Religion is not based on evidence and data. True Scientists don't care if you want to believe in Creationism or not, and I disagree that studying the earth and how we got here is a waste of time and energy.

 

 

I haven't read the article so I'll try to go back and read it sometime today (which one is it). On face value, your statement makes no sense whatsoever. Creationism is a belief intrepreted from Christianity. Science doesn't even delve into religion becuase religion has nothing to do with Science. "Intentionally trying to discredit" is not part of the scientific method or the scientific community.

 

Like I said Ill try to read the article later today. It's obvious that scientists and Creationists differ on the age of the earth, fossils, dinsouaurs, etc....but Scientists didn't come to differing conlcusions while intentionally trying to discredit Christianity.

 

Do you personally discredit the evolutionary theory? It seems to me that this is your problem....not a Science problem. I have no issues with the possiblity of a higher being and evolution working together. I have no idea what you are trying to say at this point .

 

You keep repetaing the same thing and insinuating that Science has a primary vendetta to discredit relgions. It makes no sense. It's like your saying something like..."I hate when eating Banana Splits intentionally discredits technology research for fuel efficieny in automobiles."

[DemonKnight]

I am gonna join a church and demand they teach evolution in sunday school.... Religion is humanitys intellectual crutch and science its physical therapist...

[bushwacked]

sorry if this was already mentioned, but it seems as though evolution is a belief system dressed up as science too.  someone has to believe that evolution is true because nobody was around millions or billions of years ago when some one celled organism decided it wanted to be more complex ... or when some big explosion happened that caused all the working complexities ... go over to iraq and see how many good working complex things came out of any bombs that went off there, just rediculous.

 

1259466[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

 

This post is full of entertaining retardation. All in one short paragraph!

[Perchoutofwater]

I don't think that creationism or intelligent design should be taught in science class. I wouldn't have a problem with it in a philosophy class, but in reality how many of those are available in high school. That being said I do have a problem with a teacher not being able to mentiong ID if specifically asked by a student. So I guess my stance is that ID should not be a part of the lesson plan, though if confronted with it in the class room, I think that a teacher should be able to give a cursary over view of it and move on.

[rajncajn]

Well first of all, the scientific method uses data and observations to develop hypothesis, theories, and sometimes even draw conculsions or establish fundamental laws.  Religion has no place in Science because religion it is typicallly compromised of things like faith and spirituality.  Religion is not based on evidence and data.  True Scientists don't care if you want to believe in Creationism or not, and I disagree that studying the earth and how we got here is a waste of time and energy.

1259484[/snapback]

 

 

 

I'm not arguing against this at all.

 

I haven't read the article so I'll try to go back and read it sometime today (which one is it).  On face value, your statement makes no sense whatsoever. Creationism is a belief intrepreted from Christianity.  Science doesn't even delve into religion becuase religion has nothing to do with Science. "Intentionally trying to discredit" is not part of the scientific method or the scientific community. 

1259484[/snapback]

 

 

 

Didn't you even read the title of the thread?

Another nail in the coffin for Intelligent Design

or the initial post?

Proponents of intelligent design, which holds that a supreme being rather than evolution is responsible for life's complexities, have long criticized science for not being able to explain some natural phenomena, such as how bees fly.

 

Now scientists have put this perplexing mystery to rest.

 

Meat Face and the person who wrote the article, Sara Goudarzi of Livescience.com, by their comments are using this find to discredit Intelligent Design.

Like I said Ill try to read the article later today.  It's obvious that scientists and Creationists differ on the age of the earth, fossils, dinsouaurs, etc....but Scientists didn't come to differing conlcusions while intentionally trying to discredit Christianity. 

1259484[/snapback]

 

 

 

What I'm saying is that I don't understand why people like Meat & the writer of this article and yes, some scientists, waste their time & energy trying to discredit it.

Do you personally discredit the evolutionary theory?  It seems to me that this is your problem....not a Science problem.  I have no issues with the possiblity of a higher being and evolution working together.  I  have no idea what you are trying to say at this point .

1259484[/snapback]

 

 

 

:doah: I'm about to pop a vein.

 

I have no issues with either possibility. In fact I'm in the same camp as you on the matter. For a long time, despite my being Catholic, I've considered the Bible more of a book of guidelines than a completely factual book of history...but that's a completely different subject that I will not get into.

You keep repetaing the same thing and insinuating that Science has a primary vendetta to discredit relgions. It makes no sense.  It's like your saying something like..."I hate when eating Banana Splits intentionally discredits technology research for fuel efficieny in automobiles." 

 

1259484[/snapback]

 

 

I am not insinuating anything... I am SAYING that some people & some scientists, not science itself use science for the purpose of discrediting creationism as proven by this thread & the article and that I don't understand why they waste their time for that purpose if they don't believe in it.

[Big John]

I don't think that creationism or intelligent design should be taught in science class.  I wouldn't have a problem with it in a philosophy class, but in reality how many of those are available in high school.  That being said I do have a problem with a teacher not being able to mentiong ID if specifically asked by a student.  So I guess my stance is that ID should not be a part of the lesson plan, though if confronted with it in the class room, I think that a teacher should be able to give a cursary over view of it and move on.

 

1259514[/snapback]

 

 

 

At my High School, the teacher explained that this was a theory, and asked for other theories, where creationism was brought up. He said that it can be learned elsewhere and that you were free to believe what you wanted to believe.

 

IMO those are not mutually exclusive ideas. I don't believe the Biblical literalists that earth is about 6000 years old and that dinosaurs co-existed with humans, but I do believe that science with evolution is an explanation of the process of creationism.