(not really) intelligent design

[HardDrive]

Like Nathans_Dad, I find it frustrating the people cannot be comfortable with their religous faith and science. Why do these two things need to be in opposed?

It would seem the actual root of the problem here is folks literal interpretations of the bible.....

[HardDrive]

Originally posted by scottmandue
Why do you Darwinian evangelist make ID a religious issue anyway, are there not scientists spending millions of dollars searching for intelligent life somewhere out in the universe?

Are you really that stupid or are you just trying to get a reaction here?

[nostatic]

Originally posted by Mulhollanddose
Or perhaps that shoe is on your foot.

Evolution theory has been slaughtered by ID, that is why they near black-out any dissenting presentations.

I have my left shoe on my left foot, and my right shoe on my right foot.

do I get a prize?

[KNS]

Dover voted it down but the Kansas School Board did not. The issue will come up again in other states. Unfortunately (and I hope I am wrong) I think this could be the beginning of dark period - intellectually speaking - for the United States.

For years we have been at the leading edge of science and technology. In the past couple of years medical researchers here in the U.S. have left this country to pursue stem cell research abroad. The result? Several other countries are now leading the way with new breakthroughs in this field.

The U.S. will eventually use federal funding for stem cell research but only after realizing we have a lot of catching up to do.

When you start pushing science out of the classroom in favor of a faith based curriculum, the number of students wanting to pursue a career in science will dwindle even further. Already, the majority of science grads from U.S. Universities are foreign born. Nothing wrong with that except many of them take that education back to their country of birth, leaving the U.S. with even fewer scientists.

The Evengelicals have already stated that they would like to bring prayer into the classroom. That will be a fun debate.

[scottmandue]

Originally posted by nostatic
because "science" has broad acceptance across religions, cultures, and countries. It is a common ground that sparks debate and inquiry, but the process is governed by theory, data, and analysis.

In theory you are correct, however scientist are human beings and history shows they have sometimes doctored their data to advance their theory (belief)

[IROC]

Why do people start throwing out "belief in god" when discussing the theory of evolution? The theory of evolution does not concern itself with whether there is a god or not.

IMHO, the vast amjority of all people who oppose the theory of evolution know little or nothing about it. You can't intelligently argue about something that you know little about. That's apparent from some of the posts in this thread.

Pascal's Wager has absolutely no bearing on this subject (and doesn't make any sense in the first place).

Mike

[Z-man]

Originally posted by IROC
The theory of evolution is not a "belief". It's a scientific theory. Big difference.

Please explain.

If it requires 'belief' or 'faith' to accept a theory, then scientific theory, is in it's foundations, a belief system. I don't see a difference.

-Z-man.

[scottmandue]

Originally posted by HardDrive
Are you really that stupid or are you just trying to get a reaction here?

Can you discuss differing opinions without resorting to childish insults?

[Z-man]

Originally posted by IROC
Why do people start throwing out "belief in god" when discussing the theory of evolution? The theory of evolution does not concern itself with whether there is a god or not.

Belief and disbelief in God are like two opposing chessmen standing next to each on a chessboard.

While most evolutionists believe God does not exsist, the main opposing view of evolution, aka creationism, begins with the theory that God does exsist. That's why "belief in God" comes up so often when folks debate or discuss the theory of evolution.

-Z-man.

[wludavid]

Originally posted by IROC
the vast amjority of all people who oppose the theory of evolution know little or nothing about it.

I'll take that one step further - most of them don't even know the scientific definition of "theory". Again, that's evident from posts in this thread.

Proponents of ID don't allow themselves to be encumbered by facts. Why is anyone surprised?

[nostatic]

Originally posted by KNS
Dover voted it down but the Kansas School Board did not. The issue will come up again in other states. Unfortunately (and I hope I am wrong) I think this could be the beginning of dark period - intellectually speaking - for the United States.

Beginning? We're just getting into the sweet spot of the demise. The US has about a 10-20 year window before we are toast. We still hold a slim lead in "innovation", but that is only in limited fields now, and is shrinking daily. We have used off-shoring and outsourcing as a crutch to prop up corporate profits instead of leveraging it to drive creativity. We're fat, stupid, and wallowing in confusion.

holy crap, I sound like tabs. Mother, how did you let this happen?

[Z-man]

Originally posted by nostatic
I have my left shoe on my left foot, and my right shoe on my right foot.

do I get a prize?

Figures that nostatic would bring shoeism into this debate. Question is, which shoe did you put on first? And did you remember to put your socks one prior to slipping your feet into your shoes? Are they loafers? Tennis shoes? Dress shoes? And most importantly, what condition is your SOUL in?!?

-Z-man.

[Mulhollanddose]

Originally posted by widebody911
Do share...

Take your last breath and you will have your answer.

[nostatic]

Originally posted by scottmandue
In theory you are correct, however scientist are human beings and history shows they have sometimes doctored their data to advance their theory (belief)

And it was caught by the community. That's what peer review is all about. It isn't perfect, but the system works. Open inquiry and open publication of data and results.

[IROC]

Originally posted by Z-man
Please explain.

If it requires 'belief' or 'faith' to accept a theory, then scientific theory, is in it's foundations, a belief system. I don't see a difference.

-Z-man.

Show me a scientific theory that in any way requires "faith" to accept.

The "foundations" of science are not "beliefs". Scientific theories are based on evidence, observations and experimentation -not beliefs.

Mike

[RallyJon]

Um, a bunch of lawyers a lot better versed on this debate than most of you have been arguing it up. Rather than have a contest to see who knows the positions best on PPOT, why not just read the trial transcripts?

The issue isn't whether ID is defensible. Clearly to have gotten as far as it has, ID proponents have done a masterful job crafting a debating position.

The issue is what teaching ID in public schools does to a township/city/state. If your local school teaches ID, your community is a joke. What company would want to locate in such a backwards place? How will it affect college admissions (and I'm not talking Bob Jones) when they find out?

[IROC]

Originally posted by Mulhollanddose
Take your last breath and you will have your answer.

...and you have proof of this?

[BlueSkyJaunte]

The problem with the religious (and non-scientists in general) is that they equate "theory" with "hypothesis".

A theory is based on observation of facts, experimentation, and has been verified multiple times and can be verified by impartial researchers.

A hypothesis is a guess based exclusively upon observation. Such as "Bob is dead; we don't see him around town much anymore."

BTW, the next step up from "theory" is "law". You know, like 1+1=2.

[wludavid]

Originally posted by Z-man
Please explain.

If it requires 'belief' or 'faith' to accept a theory, then scientific theory, is in it's foundations, a belief system. I don't see a difference.

-Z-man.

First, belief != faith. Belief is trusting something to be true and faith is a belief that's not held up by logical proof. Science is not based in faith. For a scientist to believe something, he needs verifiable and repeatable evidence. For example, I believe that if I drop a ball in a vacuum at the surface of the Earth, it will accelerate at 9.81 m/s^2 until something stops it. I believe this because I've seen it done many times and never seen this not happen. It does not require faith to trust this fact to be true.

OTOH, there are those who have a faith in science - those who think that science will solve all of society's problems for example. This is not verifiable because it involves the future, and quite franky we've seen example (lots of them) wherein science has proved detrimental to society.

But don't confuse the larger 'faith' some have in science with the smaller verifiable beliefs in its theories.

[island_dude]

With all due respect to those who number themselves in the creationist camp: There are many, many scientists who have very deep religious beliefs. The have no problem with reconciling their faith with their work in science. Why? Because Science is not trying to create a faith. Science examines mechanisms for how things can work. It is very pragmatic. It doesn't mater if a theory is "true" if it provides a framework to explain our observations. Once the theory breaks down, it either get fixed or replaced. Newtonian physics is still in the classrooms even at the undergraduate level, but we know that as a theory it breaks down. It is still taught because it is simple and very applicable for most of the conditions that we consider in everyday life.

Religion is trying to answer the "why" question. Any mechanisms proposed by a religious explaination at not necessarily literally true. That isn't the point.

Now there are some folks in the scientific community that try to operate at the religious level. They are making a mistake.

I will never understand why the theory of evolution seems so offensive to some people of faith (and they are in the minority). I don't see any debates about teaching newton's "laws" over "intelligent Physics" (or someother nonsense). There are certainly "gaps" in this theory.

To me the bottom line is the same if your whole life revolves around a strict and literal reading of the bible. It is very hard to do this without being forced to pick and choose. Besides, why does it seem that the literalists don't bother to read the bible in its original language? How can you be certain that you have it right if you are relying on someone else to develop the translations for you?

I guess I have it easy. I don't take the biblical stories literally. I assume that they are trying to make a point using imagery that people could relate to at the time it was written. Of course, I am not burdened with the belief the bible was transcribed literally either. I guess if you hold those beliefs, there is a lot to fear from science. Any observation that doesn't support the exact timeline and events outlined in the bible would have to be wrong. The theory of relativity can't possibly hold. If it did, then it would mean that it would contradict the whole biblical time line. We would have to assume that the speed of light is subject to huge variations in order to make it work. All of this is enough to make my head hurt.

Why on earth do we have to suppress an effective explaination for the transformation of life forms because it violates the religeous views of a small minority? Why should we force these specific religious views into our science classes? Doesn't this open us up to all sorts of crazy things? ID is not science no matter what the discovery institute claims. Teach it in Sunday school, but not in science class.

Oh yah. Why does this somehow end up being a liberal vs. conservative thing?