The God Poll

[IROC]

Originally posted by 72doug2,2S
What you say boils down to this. Thinking for yourself is dangerous, censorship of ideas and thought are good, listen to me I have all the answers. Sound good? Not to me.

You must have a vivid imagination to derive this meaning from my many posts on this subject.

Thinking for yourself is a virtue. Censorship of ideas is not acceptable. I simply pointed out that creationism and ID are not scientific theories and as a result do not belong in a science classroom. That is in no way censorship. They are not there because they have no merit, not because someone is trying to censor thought. There are lots of things that do not belong in a science classroom - alchemy, astrology, etc. Am I squelching the freedom of ideas and thoughts of astologists by not allowing them to teach astrology as a valid scientific theory to school children? I don't think so.

[72doug2,2S]

Originally posted by IROC
You must have a vivid imagination to derive this meaning from my many posts on this subject.

Thinking for yourself is a virtue. Censorship of ideas is not acceptable. I simply pointed out that creationism and ID are not scientific theories and as a result do not belong in a science classroom. That is in no way censorship. They are not there because they have no merit, not because someone is trying to censor thought. There are lots of things that do not belong in a science classroom - alchemy, astrology, etc. Am I squelching the freedom of ideas and thoughts of astologists by not allowing them to teach astrology as a valid scientific theory to school children? I don't think so.

The fundamental question is the origin of life. Once you get past he serious science of evolution, it makes fanciful Hypothesis, of course untested and unproven, of life's origins, all by chance and from nothing. It begins to delve into something science cannot answer. It poorly attempts what philosophy was designed to do, asking the questions that go beyond science.

Noting a teleological argument that fits the data is no less scientific than the fanciful parts of evolution that even disturbed it's creator Charles Darwin.

Presupposing ID is not scientific isn't a crime it's intellectual bankruptcy.

[kang]

Why do Atheists care about Religion?

[IROC]

Originally posted by 72doug2,2S
The fundamental question is the origin of life. Once you get past he serious science of evolution, it makes fanciful Hypothesis, of course untested and unproven, of life's origins, all by chance and from nothing.

...edited...

Presupposing ID is not scientific isn't a crime it's intellectual bankruptcy.

You misunderstand the theory of evolution - it says nothing of the "origins of life", so your argument is not valid. You need to learn more about the theory, obviously.

"Intelligent design" is not a scientific theory. I am not presupposing anything.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI001.html

[IROC]

Another telling quote regarding ID from the Wikipedia page on ID:

"The consensus in the scientific community is that intelligent design is not science.[12] The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that intelligent design "and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life" are not science because they cannot be tested by experiment, do not generate any predictions, and propose no new hypotheses of their own.[13] The National Science Teachers Association and others have termed it pseudoscience,[14] and some have termed it junk science.[15]"

[72doug2,2S]

Originally posted by IROC
Another telling quote regarding ID from the Wikipedia page on ID:

"The consensus in the scientific community is that intelligent design is not science.[12] The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that intelligent design "and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life" are not science because they cannot be tested by experiment, do not generate any predictions, and propose no new hypotheses of their own.[13] The National Science Teachers Association and others have termed it pseudoscience,[14] and some have termed it junk science.[15]"

Yes and no,
ID uses the data (science) to propose a philosophical argument.

[IROC]

Originally posted by 72doug2,2S
Yes and no,
ID uses the data (science) to propose a philosophical argument.

Then it's philosophy, not science. Either way unfit for teaching children in a science classroom.

The statement "The consensus in the scientific community is that intelligent design is not science." pretty much says it all.

[kang]

Originally posted by 72doug2,2S
Yes and no,
ID uses the data (science) to propose a philosophical argument.

Precisely what data is behind ID? ID is just the idea that “it’s so complicated, there must have been a designer.” What data supports the existence of a designer?

[72doug2,2S]

Originally posted by IROC
Then it's philosophy, not science. Either way unfit for teaching children in a science classroom.

The statement "The consensus in the scientific community is that intelligent design is not science." pretty much says it all.

Not so fast.

Science or philosophy?
1) Probability and Chance
2) Nature, power and scope of selection
3) Adaptation
4) Nominalism vs. Essentialism in the tempo and mode for evolutionary change

[kang]

Originally posted by IROC
The statement "The consensus in the scientific community is that intelligent design is not science." pretty much says it all.

The courts have made this decision as well. ID is not science and does not belong in the science classroom. In church, sure, you can say a galactic warrior brought frozen souls to earth in church if you want, but you cannot teach mythology in a state-funded science classroom.

[IROC]

Originally posted by 72doug2,2S
Not so fast.

Science or philosophy?
1) Probability and Chance
2) Nature, power and scope of selection
3) Adaptation
4) Nominalism vs. Essentialism in the tempo and mode for evolutionary change

Give it up. You're wasting your time on this one. No one (that has a dog in the fight) takes ID seriously. ID brings nothing to the table other than a thinly veiled attempt to re-badge creationism. It's not even worthy of discussion.

[trekkor]

It's not even worthy of discussion.

I don't know how or why you say that.

Nearly everthing you can see or think about is too complicated to have come about without "help".


KT

[IROC]

Originally posted by trekkor
I don't know how or why you say that.

I only say it because the whole ID phenomenon has been thrashed thoroughly in scientific circles and has been found to be without merit. Until it brings something else to the table, it is not worthy of discussion.

To repeat a quote from my previous post:

"The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that intelligent design "and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life" are not science because they cannot be tested by experiment, do not generate any predictions, and propose no new hypotheses of their own."

What predictions does ID make? How can it be tested by experiment?

Like I said, bring to light something that even the National Academy of Sciences hasn't seen yet or give it up. It's not worth arguing about.

[trekkor]

You assume man is accurate or has the answers.

Mistake number one.



KT

[IROC]

Originally posted by trekkor
You assume man is accurate or has the answers.

Mistake number one.

Well then show where the theory of evolution is incorrect. No one has been able to do it yet. You'll be the first! Think of the fame and riches!!!

Science might not be accurate at all times or have all the answers, but until you can bring something better to the table you're not adding any value. ID doesn't bring anything to the table.

[stuartj]

Trek has an agenda, sadly. He is "Witnessing". An intersting (and unattributed) quote I picked up off the interweb.

"If a seasoned dedicated Jehovah's Witness was to approach a crossroad and saw the two signs; One showing the direction of the Heaven and the other pointing the direction of a group of people that are willing and ready to hear their call of "Awake!". He/she would rather proceed in that direction and hand over the magazine."

[trekkor]

ID doesn't bring anything to the table.

I think it does. And likely a billion others do, too.

Just because we don't have all the answers and our mind does not allow us to understand the *total* complexity of the universe doesn't mean there is no God.

We're not a "big" as you think.

KT

[sjf911]

Now you know why NASA is spending so much money trying to find extra-terrestrial life. Finding evidence of life on Mars or elsewhere that confirms independent origin and divergent evolution will be the nail in the coffin of ID/creationism.

[trekkor]

Not likely...

NASA is looking for another place to live, "just in case"...


Evrything is "whens" and "ifs" with this crowd. How about focusing on the here and now?


KT

[IROC]

Originally posted by trekkor
I think it does. And likely a billion others do, too.

Just because we don't have all the answers and our mind does not allow us to understand the *total* complexity of the universe doesn't mean there is no God.

We're not a "big" as you think.

I don't think we're "big" at all - just the opposite. We are truly insignificant in the big picture.

It doesn't matter to me if 5 billion people believe that ID is correct - until you can provide some evidence to support it, it's not going to be taken seriously.

Trek, here's an analogy that you seem to fit. The mainstream world states that 2+2=4 and you claim they're wrong. You're asked why you think that and you say something like "because man thinks he is smarter than he really is" or "math has been wrong before" or something like that. While your response is not technically wrong (we have been wrong before) you're not addressing why you think 2+2 does not equal 4. Unless you can provide some bit of logic why 2+2 does not equal 4 or tell us what you think 2+2 *does* equal, you're really more or less acting like a troll. You come in and make statements that stir people up and then never defend them.

If you truly think that the theory of evolution is false and ID is correct, then you need to step up and explain why in some detail. Simply saying "assuming man has all the answers is your first mistake" or something like that is worthless.

Sorry if I sound frustrated, but it is obvious that you either really don't understand mainstream science or you are being intentionally intellectually dishonest. If it's the former, we can help you understand if you like - if it's the latter then you need to think about what you're doing as it does not reflect positively on you.