FFRF: Creationists Bolstered by Bush "Intelligent Design" Nod

[sciwizam]

My local NPR station aired a program concerning this topic... Debate over Intelligent Design. Mind you that this is about an hour long, but it's worth the wait to see how the Darwin guy responds to the ID guy.

 

[wirelessenabled]

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: Forsythe

Originally posted by: M00T
Relgion is useless in today's world.

There are some places like africa and ME where i still see need for it.

Wouldn't you think the South East could use less?

Fixed for ya

 

[Cerb]

Originally posted by: cquark

Originally posted by: Cerb

Originally posted by: BDawg

Originally posted by: Cerb
Creationism and Evolution are opposed.
Intelligent Design has nothing to do with Creationism, Evolution, or Abiogenesis(sp).

Now, how do you get people to realize this?

Please... intelligent design is an attempt to put a secular face on creationism. Too bad it's still not science.

Too bad it isn't?

It is. Read the Wedge document, where the founders of ID creationism state their goals.

Ugh, no need to get that far.

"If evolutionists are convinced that criticisms of evolution are easily refuted ? and that intelligent design is not scientifically sound ? then why not let students in on the debate? Yes, it takes up time in the curriculum. And yes, teachers must be prepared to teach the controversy fairly and accurately. But surely open and honest examination of the issues can only help, not hurt, science education."

Oh, great article title, with equally meaningless content:
"Pomeroy: Rescue Science from Evolutionists"

However, I went and read it, anyway. I love this little gem:
"Without solid scholarship, research and argument, the project would be just another attempt to indoctrinate instead of persuade."

Or:
"PBS show such as Nova treating design theory fairly"
Given the same definitions of theory, that would be a very short show.

Why should it be pursued as science?

It shouldn't, but the founders of ID creationism and writers and speakers about ID claim that it should be.

 

[BDawg]

Originally posted by: Cerb
"If evolutionists are convinced that criticisms of evolution are easily refuted ? and that intelligent design is not scientifically sound ? then why not let students in on the debate? Yes, it takes up time in the curriculum. And yes, teachers must be prepared to teach the controversy fairly and accurately. But surely open and honest examination of the issues can only help, not hurt, science education."

Why not teach them the "theory" that the earth is carried around on the back of a tortoise? Because just like "intelligent" design, it's not a scientific theory. It's a religous opinion. The point of the argument isn't even that evolution is right or wrong, that point is irrelevant.

The point is that evolution is a theory which has evidence, observation, review, and testing. That's what makes it a theory. "I"D is not a theory. "I"D is not science. You don't just throw out every non-scientific opinion in science class.

 

[Cerb]

Originally posted by: BDawg

Originally posted by: Cerb
"If evolutionists are convinced that criticisms of evolution are easily refuted ? and that intelligent design is not scientifically sound ? then why not let students in on the debate? Yes, it takes up time in the curriculum. And yes, teachers must be prepared to teach the controversy fairly and accurately. But surely open and honest examination of the issues can only help, not hurt, science education."

Why not teach them the "theory" that the earth is carried around on the back of a tortoise? Because just like "intelligent" design, it's not a scientific theory. It's a religous opinion.

Well, boo hoo; just because you haven't gotten Rincewind's autograph, pout pout...

The point of the argument isn't even that evolution is right or wrong, that point is irrelevant.

The point is that evolution is a theory which has evidence, observation, review, and testing. That's what makes it a theory. "I"D is not a theory. "I"D is not science. You don't just throw out every non-scientific opinion in science class.

Why not? It has as much of a place in biology as a game of chess does.

 

[Moonbeam]

Sadly this debate would resolve itself a lot more quickly if Christians didn't run to evolutionists doctors and medicine every time they got sick.

 

[0roo0roo]

intelligent design? its an incomplete name. its intelligent design theology and should be called as such. these people have been playing with words forever.

their tactics are shameless and exactly like those of holocaust deniers

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
intelligent design? its an incomplete name. its intelligent design theology and should be called as such. these people have been playing with words forever.

their tactics are shameless and exactly like those of holocaust deniers

The thing I hate about Intelligent Design is that God designed it so that it looks exactly like it evolved. Those poor dumb scientists fell for the ruse, hook, line, and sinker.