Bush endorses Intelligent Design in the Classroom

[coomar]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: NJDevil
Have you not gotten the point that there is no (zero, zilch, nada) scientific evidence for ID. The only argument they can make is, "we can't explain everything so here is a really vague and untestable answer." When you can test ID against data, and present actual evidence of it being a possible explanation of life on the earth, then you can teach it in my biology classes.

:thumbsup: :beer:

at least i know that if anyone tried to teach ID in canada in a public school they would be fired

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: GoPackGo
Evolution doesn't even care to explain how any life began.

Life is a battle against nature. Have you ever noticed?

Got a forest? Along comes a lightning strike to burn it down.

Got a field of grass? Along comes a drought.

Wind, Rain, Heat, Volcanoes all do more to destroy life and to wash away the earth.

The elements of the earth all work to break down things complex to simplex.

A mountain erodes a way. Shore line washes away. It's all about entropy.

So if anyone can care to explain how such complexity was created from a chaotic environment which seems to default to decay, I would be most grateful.

Text

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975
But I do believe that there was intelligent design involved in the creation of the universe, and not just our galaxy or our planet...intelligent design is either beyond human comprehension or we currently lack the technology to understand it.

You seem to have difficulty accepting the universe that was "always there", and you believe an "intelligent designer" takes care of your discomfort.

But where did your "intelligent designer" come from? Another intelligent designer? And another? And another? Ad infinitum? How about the "first" intelligent designer - did "he" just "happen randomly"?

Or do you believe in an intelligent designer who was "always there"? If so, why not just use the word "God". And if you really mean "God", by what intellectual principle are you able to accept "always there" as a characteristic of "God" but not as a characteristic of the universe?

 

[Todd33]

Originally posted by: GoPackGo
Evolution doesn't even care to explain how any life began.

Life is a battle against nature. Have you ever noticed?

Got a forest? Along comes a lightning strike to burn it down.

Got a field of grass? Along comes a drought.

Wind, Rain, Heat, Volcanoes all do more to destroy life and to wash away the earth.

The elements of the earth all work to break down things complex to simplex.

A mountain erodes a way. Shore line washes away. It's all about entropy.

So if anyone can care to explain how such complexity was created from a chaotic environment which seems to default to decay, I would be most grateful.

This is a classic creationist viewpoint, also known as "I failed science class". Complex things are made from simple things all the time in nature. Nature destroys and builds up all the time, it's called... nature.

Life is a battle against nature. Have you ever noticed?

No, I have not. Life is nature, that's kind of the point here.

Got a forest? Along comes a lightning strike to burn it down.

Then what, God makes new trees? No, the nutrients from the remains then fertilize new trees, hence fires keep forest healthy.

Got a field of grass? Along comes a drought.

Ya, same thing, you can write these lines all day: Got a [insert plant]? Along comes a [insert natural disaster].

Wind, Rain, Heat, Volcanoes all do more to destroy life and to wash away the earth.

Wind kills life? Rain? Heat? You want a place with no rain or heat? LOL. While volcanoes kill, they also add landmass. Hell, there are life forms that only live in the deep sea where underwater volcanoes reach the water. No sunlight and 140+ degrees. These lifeforms live NO where else on the planet.

The elements of the earth all work to break down things complex to simplex.

Wrong. Where do the element come from? Dying stars! The whole Earth (every planet) is just star puke. Nature is all about forming complex from simple, but it also works both ways.

A mountain erodes a way. Shore line washes away. It's all about entropy.

Again, you are just saying the same thing over and over. Pick one aspect about nature and stick with it huh? Where is you line about sperm and eggs creating a baby, oh wait wind and rain is always killing things.

You need a basic biology class. There are plenty of good books that are not the Bible.

 

[Starbuck1975]

You seem to have difficulty accepting the universe that was "always there", and you believe an "intelligent designer" takes care of your discomfort.

It is not a question of discomfort, as I could easily accept a world without God if science were able to prove it so.

But where did your "intelligent designer" come from? Another intelligent designer? And another? And another? Ad infinitum? How about the "first" intelligent designer - did "he" just "happen randomly"? Or do you believe in an intelligent designer who was "always there"? If so, why not just use the word "God".

I believe there are some things that are beyond the grasp and realm of human understanding...I can accept that I have no answer to explain in rational terms the existence of a higher being...I do not accept how humanity has twisted the concept of God into the human construct of religion, and its ability to control human being and even drive it towards the most carnal and barbaric of behavior.

And if you really mean "God", by what intellectual principle are you able to accept "always there" as a characteristic of "God" but not as a characteristic of the universe?

Unlike the concept of God, the universe is a tangible thing...it is measurable, and understood or at the very least explained, within the limited realm of human understanding...scientific reasoning can explain or at least provide theories on every aspect of human existance with the exception of its origin...the natural order of life on this planet is too structured and balanced to have happened randomly.

Accepting the perpetual nature of the universe is very much a leap of faith, as humanity has yet to understand or define the complexity of the universe in scientific terms...accepting the existance of God is no more irrational then accepting a universe that science has yet to fully comprehend...how is that leap of faith any different then the leap of faith into the divine?

 

[Todd33]

Humans did not twist the concept of god, they made it up. There have been around ten thousand religions since the early days of man, when man does not understand something they construct higher being(s) to confort them. This was the way of the cave man and is the same today.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Humans did not twist the concept of god, they made it up. There have been around ten thousand religions since the early days of man, when man does not understand something they construct higher being(s) to confort them. This was the way of the cave man and is the same today.

Humanity by its very nature attempts to understand and interact with their surrounding environments...while the concept of a God, or multiple Gods for that matter, may have filled a void that in some cases has now been filled by science, the driving force remains the same...the motivations and energy that drives the sciences is no different then that which helped religions to develop...even today, with our scientific knowledge, the concept of God remains because there are still some voids that even science cannot explain...and science has certainly assumed a dogmatic structure all of its own.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

Humans did not twist the concept of god, they made it up. There have been around ten thousand religions since the early days of man, when man does not understand something they construct higher being(s) to confort them. This was the way of the cave man and is the same today.

Humanity by its very nature attempts to understand and interact with their surrounding environments...while the concept of a God, or multiple Gods for that matter, may have filled a void that in some cases has now been filled by science, the driving force remains the same...the motivations and energy that drives the sciences is no different then that which helped religions to develop...even today, with our scientific knowledge, the concept of God remains because there are still some voids that even science cannot explain...and science has certainly assumed a dogmatic structure all of its own.

So religion is just something that fills in the blanks then? What can't science explain exactly?

 

[daclayman]

Look here, I endorse the teaching of ID in public schools, with exceptions, of course. It shouldn't be written in a text book, but rather a series of pamphlets, ya' know, like the ones some of you hand out to people that should be saved. Ooohh, ooohh, and give 'em a crayon too; that's what GW would want. You could color your I-telligent desiggner whatever color you wanted so long as it's white.

 

[IHateMyJob2004]

Originally posted by: loki8481
if they want to teach that evolution is a theory, I'd have no problem with that, because it is (albeit a fairly solid and widely accepted theory). in that regard, saying "the sun is going to rise tomorrow morning" is also a theory, because there's no way of knowing whether or not it will happen until it does.

and if they want to teach other theories, I'd be fine with that too, but please, find ones that have more of a scientific basis than ID, which pretty much just says "it's too complicated to figure out by using science."

I have no problem with evolution being called a theory as long as creationism (or whatever it's called) is referred to as a MYTH.

Why isn't greek mythology tought in Science class? Creationism as part of a science class is by far the most absurd idea ever

 

[Whaspe]

What is the ultimate goal of science classes? It's not to teach us the differences between physical states or ecosystems. These things are merely tools to teach kids to be critical thinkers, to be able to be objective and not just accept everything they hear. When a science teacher makes cracks about the existence of a God and uses science/evolution as evidense to refute its existence then he/she has lossed that objective. If there is going to be any claims or talk of the origins of life and this world then that's an open invite for ID and creationism to be discussed as well.

 

[Shuxclams]

The world started 10,000 years ago.... cause God made it.













SHUX

 

[xtknight]

Creationists don't annoy me. But their inferiority complex severely irks me. They're set to default to "God did it" when all else fails, and science is beyond their comprehension, "hmmm....screw it. God did it!" Look, if you don't look at both sides of the story, then don't support either of them. But there's nothing we can do if logic goes in one ear and comes out the other.

 

[assemblage]

2 theories. I don't see a problem. Man from ape from slime isn't a fact.

 

[Red Dawn]

They should teach ID..right alongside Greek, ROman and Norse Mythology.

 

[BoberFett]

Doesn't Bush have better things to do than work on school curriculums? I don't remember where that duty is laid out in the constitution.

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: assemblage
2 theories. I don't see a problem. Man from ape from slime isn't a fact.

but its science

 

[NeoV]

I do have a problem if our President thinks it should be taught - regardless of his ability to force it to be taught or not...

To say that ID is flawed as much as the Big Bang or Evolutionary theories is idiotic...while there may be things about those theories we dont' have all the answers for, we at least have a general outline and a solid body of evidence to support various stages of those theories.....

on the other hand, we have nothing to support the ID theory other than the fact that life, at a micro-biology and smaller level, is amazingly complex....so let's just give up on explaining it say "some higher power" gave life it's start...doesn't work for me, sorry.

Students in the US are falling behind many other nations in the education of their children - there are many reasons for this, but we should at least make sure the curriculum in our public schools is as strong and topical as it can be - we don't need garbage like this leading kids in directions that have no future application.

 

[NJDevil]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

Have you not gotten the point that there is no (zero, zilch, nada) scientific evidence for ID. The only argument they can make is, "we can't explain everything so here is a really vague and untestable answer." When you can test ID against data, and present actual evidence of it being a possible explanation of life on the earth, then you can teach it in my biology classes.

The origins of our universe are a matter of speculation, and that applies to both intelligent design and evolution.

I happen to believe that intelligent design and evolution do not necessarily contradict one another...there is no concrete scientific evidence that proves how the universe came into existence.

The Big Bang theory may explain the origins of our universe, but where did the matter come from to begin with? Human comprehension of our very existence almost demands a definitive beginning, yet scientific theory suggests that the universe is an infinite entity.

Evolution may demonstrate a scientifically proven progression of species on this planet, which I happen to agree with...but the balance of water, nutrients and other requirements for supporting and sustaining life...hard for me to believe that it all just happened randomly...I do not necessarily believe in the Genesis explanation for humanity's existance on this planet...not everyone who believes in intelligent design accepts the Bible, or any religious text for that matter, as historical and scientific proof.

But I do believe that there was intelligent design involved in the creation of the universe, and not just our galaxy or our planet...intelligent design is either beyond human comprehension or we currently lack the technology to understand it.

Scientists cannot explain everything, and also maintain vague and untestable theories for supporting their understanding of how life came to be on this planet...if they did have concrete evidence, there would be no debate.

That being said, intelligent design is nothing more then a Trojan Horse that keeps Judeo-Christian Creationism in the classroom...however, I think you can take religion out of the equation when discussing intelligent design.

Listen, I understand all that. I believe in God. I don't believe the world was created in 6 days plus a day of rest, that's obviously a metaphor.

My main point against what you're saying is that again, ID has NO scientific basis. That's why it shouldn't be taught in science classes. Evolution can't explain how life began, and while it hints at the conditions of the earth at the time of the first organisms, evolution doesn't say anything about god/electricity/spontaneous life, etc. There is no testable scientific answer for how life began, so leave THAT part out of the classroom. Teach it in any other class (philosophy, history of religion, whatever), just not in science.

I have no problem with you believing in intelligent design. When it comes down to it, I believe that God simply put things into motion to create life (still not positive that will be my final answer), but I don't think that has any scientific merit. I don't expect it to, as faith doesn't require evidence. Fortunately, science does. Find some and then you can bring it into biology/science class.

What part of my point are you missing? Evolution can't tell us everything, so instead we should randomly guess about the origin of life? That's not scientific. What are we teaching our children about science when we introduce an untestable, (basically BS - in terms of science) theory?

 

[NJDevil]

Originally posted by: Whaspe
What is the ultimate goal of science classes? It's not to teach us the differences between physical states or ecosystems. These things are merely tools to teach kids to be critical thinkers, to be able to be objective and not just accept everything they hear. When a science teacher makes cracks about the existence of a God and uses science/evolution as evidense to refute its existence then he/she has lossed that objective. If there is going to be any claims or talk of the origins of life and this world then that's an open invite for ID and creationism to be discussed as well.

Again, what part of science class do you not understand. ID and creationism are not science!

I feel like I'm talking to a brick wall here. You are free to believe what you want. I wouldn't want science teachers ridiculing people who believe in God, that should be a fireable offense, but in my opinion, so should the teaching of non-science in a science classroom.

Here's a wikipedia entry on Science ... take some notes children

According to empiricism, "scientific" theories are objective, empirically testable, and "predictive" ? they predict empirical results that can be checked and possibly contradicted.

In contrast, scientific realism defines science in terms of ontology: science attempts to identify "things" in the world, their causal powers, the mechanisms through which they exercise those powers, and the sources of those powers in terms of the thing's structure or internal nature.

See the part where it says, "objective, testable." -not ID
See the part on scientific realism? Notice how they identify things and how they work, you know, how atoms bind to form compounds etc. -not ID

Find me a scientific definition that includes, "untestable, purely philosophical" and I'll show you a crappy definition of science.

 

[Starbuck1975]

So religion is just something that fills in the blanks then? What can't science explain exactly?

The origin of our universe, and the matter that created it...while evolution has a scientific basis, the catalyst that started it all, to include that which created life in the first place, is beyond scientific reach.

have no problem with evolution being called a theory as long as creationism (or whatever it's called) is referred to as a MYTH. Why isn't greek mythology tought in Science class? Creationism as part of a science class is by far the most absurd idea ever

Intelligent design is not scientifically based, and therefore does not belong in scientific forums...it does have a place in philosophy or even literature classes...modern day religions, like the religions of the ancient world, provide an interesting forum for understanding how humanity interacts with and comprehends the world in which it lives.

They're set to default to "God did it" when all else fails, and science is beyond their comprehension,

Quite a blanket statement you are making there...you do realize that religions, and the Vatican in particular, was quite supportive of the sciences and even helped to preserve scientific knowledge during the Dark Ages...similarly, Islamic scholars have made incredible advances in scientific knowledge...it is possible to believe in God while still accepting and comprehending the scientific.

What part of my point are you missing? Evolution can't tell us everything, so instead we should randomly guess about the origin of life? That's not scientific. What are we teaching our children about science when we introduce an untestable, (basically BS - in terms of science) theory?

I should clarify...I do not believe intelligent design belongs in the same classroom as the subject of evolution...where biology or the earth sciences are a scientific view of the world, intelligent design is more a philosophical view of the world...I think it is healthy for students to engage in discussion about religion, so long as the classroom discussion does not advocate or forward the beliefs of one particular religion.


My problem with the religious right is their assumption that Christianity belongs in the classroom...this I do not agree with...there is a place for religion, or rather healthy discussions on religion...so long as the teacher remains as a moderator of the discussion and not a preacher on a pulpit.

 

[imported_ArtVandalay]

When it comes down to it, ID levels the playing field for laymen. It's an increasingly complex world, and those without a desire or the ability to read & learn don't want to feel stupid or left behind. ID allows them to feel smarter than those "hoighty-toighty" scientists (and diploma owners) and their "wrong" theories. What better layman to spearhead its injection into US schools' curriculum than the Doofus himself?

 

[jimkyser]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

Quite a blanket statement you are making there...you do realize that religions, and the Vatican in particular, was quite supportive of the sciences and even helped to preserve scientific knowledge during the Dark Ages...similarly, Islamic scholars have made incredible advances in scientific knowledge...it is possible to believe in God while still accepting and comprehending the scientific.

And Starbuck, that's a blanket statement, too. The church of the Dark Ages did preserve lots of knowledge during the dark ages, largely because they were the educated people who knew how to read and write when most of the rest of the populace didn't. The also ran most of the advanced centers of education. But they also persecuted those scientists who developed theories that didn't fit in with their interpretation of the bible. Just look up Galileo and what he went through because of the church. And he wasn't the only one. The church of the Dark Ages was very protective of its control over what would have been considered 'knowledge' back then.

 

[Starbuck1975]

When it comes down to it, ID levels the playing field for laymen. It's an increasingly complex world, and those without a desire or the ability to read & learn don't want to feel stupid or left behind. ID allows them to feel smarter than those "hoighty-toighty" scientists (and diploma owners) and their "wrong" theories.

Quite an illogical argument coming from someone dismissing those who believe in intelligent design as "stupid." Quite a few educated people believe in a higher being, although education is hardly a measure of intelligence.

But they also persecuted those scientists who developed theories that didn't fit in with their interpretation of the bible. Just look up Galileo and what he went through because of the church. And he wasn't the only one.

The transition was gradual once science began to contradict or otherwise challenge a Biblical perspective on the world...Galileo's persecution essentially marked the end of Vatican support for the sciences, once scientific thought and reasoning posed a threat...that being said, there are many religions, and even branches of Christianity, that accept and welcome science because they have moved away from comprehending the Bible as a literal document.

 

[NJDevil]

Hey Starbuck, how about addressing the point that ID isn't science!

Edit: In case you missed what i said before, here it is again:

My main point against what you're saying is that again, ID has NO scientific basis. That's why it shouldn't be taught in science classes. Evolution can't explain how life began, and while it hints at the conditions of the earth at the time of the first organisms, evolution doesn't say anything about god/electricity/spontaneous life, etc. There is no testable scientific answer for how life began, so leave THAT part out of the classroom. Teach it in any other class (philosophy, history of religion, whatever), just not in science.

I have no problem with you believing in intelligent design. When it comes down to it, I believe that God simply put things into motion to create life (still not positive that will be my final answer), but I don't think that has any scientific merit. I don't expect it to, as faith doesn't require evidence. Fortunately, science does. Find some and then you can bring it into biology/science class.

What part of my point are you missing? Evolution can't tell us everything, so instead we should randomly guess about the origin of life? That's not scientific. What are we teaching our children about science when we introduce an untestable, (basically BS - in terms of science) theory?