Simulated vote on Intelligent Design in public school curriculums

[DainBramaged]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: DainBramaged

Originally posted by: mugs
Well this thread is going places...

Seeing as how DainBramaged likes to post pictures of himself holding guns, and 6000SUX stole his name from Robocop, I think this matter should be settled with a duel. Pistols at dawn.

I never duel while hungover.

Then you better keep drinking. Can't get a hangover if you're still drunk.

Roger that.

 

[GroundZero]

Science, in the broadest sense, refers to any system of objective knowledge. In a more restricted sense, science refers to a system of acquiring knowledge based on the scientific method, as well as to the organized body of knowledge gained through such research.

science: a method of learning about the world by applying the principles of the scientific method, which includes making empirical observations, proposing hypotheses to explain those observations, and testing those hypotheses in valid and reliable ways; also refers to the organized body of knowledge that results from scientific study.

faith:Aceptance of ideals, beliefs, etc., which are not necessarily demonstrable through experimentation or reason.

faith and religion are not science

 

[BlancoNino]

We already had a debate about science and religion and it was concluded that they are not opposites nor is it the goal of scientists to undermine religious beliefs.

As you are an obvious troll by labeling intelligent design as "sham" science, I'm not going to answer the question. Science isn't any more factual than religion...and in fact isn't factual at all. Math is factual because it never disproves itself or changes...science OTOH is the opposite.

OP, you are picking sides and clinging onto current studies of evolution and are quick to discredit the theory of intelligent design. Tell me, how is that any better than somebody who completely discredits the theory of evolution and favors intelligent design? Believe me...it's a lot better to have an open mind and learn about both ideas..because neither are factual.

 

[6000SUX]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
We already had a debate about science and religion and it was concluded that they are not opposites nor is it the goal of scientists to undermine religious beliefs.

That's all well and good, but nobody said the two were opposites. They could not be. While it is not the goal of scientists to undermine religious beliefs, religious beliefs masquerading as scientific theories are dangerous when they are allowed into schools. Protecting the correct teaching of science can and should be the goal of scientists everywhere.

 

[sisq0kidd]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
We already had a debate about science and religion and it was concluded that they are not opposites nor is it the goal of scientists to undermine religious beliefs.

One attempts to answer how and one attempts to answer why. At least, that's the way they are taught, IMO.

Nevertheless, I have to say Intelligent Design has no place in a public school curriculum. It is an optional, elective class at best.

 

[BlancoNino]

Originally posted by: 6000SUX
Protecting the correct teaching of science can and should be the goal of scientists everywhere.

There is a correct "teaching" of science, but there is no correct science. Science isn't factual. You thinking that Intelligent Design is a threat is no better than a christian fundamentalist believing Evolution is the work of satan.

 

[Fayd]

when i was taught evolution at public schools, we took an hour talking about why teach ONLY evolution, the basic gist of evolution, and a few religious based theories. (intelligent design, creationism, and such) and basically that because there was no consensus on WHICH religious theory to teach, we were taught only evolution. that seems fine to me.

I donut think people should be shielded from alternate viewpoints, like evolutionism vs creationism, or intelligent design. the theory of evolution is just that, a theory. BUT... if you're going to attack some idea like creationism or intelligent design, shouldn't you have at the very least some idea as to what they stand for?

the hatred towards religion these days on this board really does scare me. I keep wondering when it's gonna turn from being vitriolic spew, to being violent.

 

[Fayd]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

Originally posted by: 6000SUX
Protecting the correct teaching of science can and should be the goal of scientists everywhere.

There is a correct "teaching" of science, but there is no correct science. Science isn't factual. You thinking that Intelligent Design is a threat is no better than a christian fundamentalist believing Evolution is the work of satan.

well....science is finding facts. the simple fact is, there's very limited proof available for evolution. and such is why it remains a theory.

 

[6000SUX]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

Originally posted by: 6000SUX
Protecting the correct teaching of science can and should be the goal of scientists everywhere.

There is a correct "teaching" of science, but there is no correct science. Science isn't factual. You thinking that Intelligent Design is a threat is no better than a christian fundamentalist believing Evolution is the work of satan.

I don't know where you got these ideas. There is certainly correct science, which grows out of correct use of the scientific method. Certain results may become outmoded or disproven, according to correct use of the same scientific method. This is correct science.

Science is also factual, in its use of facts to test theories.

Intelligent design is a bona-fide threat to the teaching of correct science. Your analogy is inapposite. I could just as well say you are like a PB & J sandwich-- you can say anything on a discussion board. Follow the link I posted to the NAS and being reading if you want to be able to tell truth from untruth for yourself.

 

[Chaotic42]

I'd mention it, if for no other reason than so many people believe it. I wouldn't delve too deeply though.

 

[6000SUX]

Originally posted by: Fayd

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

Originally posted by: 6000SUX
Protecting the correct teaching of science can and should be the goal of scientists everywhere.

There is a correct "teaching" of science, but there is no correct science. Science isn't factual. You thinking that Intelligent Design is a threat is no better than a christian fundamentalist believing Evolution is the work of satan.

well....science is finding facts. the simple fact is, there's very limited proof available for evolution. and such is why it remains a theory.

Evolution is not doubted by any but certain religious people who choose to disbelieve in science when it conflicts with their religious beliefs. The fact that people may speak of "the theory of evolution" does not mean it is not universally accepted by scientists (here I purposely exclude intelligent-design advocates).

 

[soydios]

In my high school AP Biology class, we did both. We spent a day on Darwinism. The next day, we spent five minutes learning the specifics of Genesis, and the rest of the 45-minute class discussing the controversy.

 

[sandorski]

Science should be taught in Science Class. Creationism/ID is not Science, thus it should not be taught in Science Class.

 

[BlancoNino]

Originally posted by: 6000SUX
Intelligent design is a bona-fide threat to the teaching of correct science.

This is where we disagree. I agree that intelligent design doesn't need to be taught in schools, but ID is in no way a threat to science nor should it be considered the opposite theory.

 

[6000SUX]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

Originally posted by: 6000SUX
Intelligent design is a bona-fide threat to the teaching of correct science.

This is where we disagree. I agree that intelligent design doesn't need to be taught in schools, but ID is in no way a threat to science nor should it be considered the opposite theory.

It is a threat to science. The letter from the NAS head may be of interest to you, or hopefully so. Knowingly introducing bad science into the classroom means that some students will learn the bad science. To teach a concept correctly means to present the information correctly, and not knowingly to present false information. I would no more contemplate allowing intelligent design into a science class than I would allow a religious person to force inclusion of the concept that 2 + 2 = 5 into a math class.

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: Fayd
when i was taught evolution at public schools, we took an hour talking about why teach ONLY evolution, the basic gist of evolution, and a few religious based theories. (intelligent design, creationism, and such) and basically that because there was no consensus on WHICH religious theory to teach, we were taught only evolution. that seems fine to me.

I donut think people should be shielded from alternate viewpoints, like evolutionism vs creationism, or intelligent design. the theory of evolution is just that, a theory. BUT... if you're going to attack some idea like creationism or intelligent design, shouldn't you have at the very least some idea as to what they stand for?

the hatred towards religion these days on this board really does scare me. I keep wondering when it's gonna turn from being vitriolic spew, to being violent.

You should know what they believe, but ID is exactly that, belief. It is not the realm of science and not appropriate for a science class. Teach about it, along with genesis, Jesus, the Holy Spirit, God, Allah, miracles and the biblical stories of Sodom and Bethlehem in a religion class, where those beliefs belong.

ID is not science. It is not a theory and therefore it does not belong in a science classroom.

 

[FoBoT]

see my sig, this is the kind of issue that belongs in the state or local realm only, the feds need to keep out of it

 

[Trevelyan]

Originally posted by: irishScott
The argument is... It's complex, therefore some higher being designed us.

That's an over-simplification, and not actually true at all. Design theories don't utilize some subjective definition of complexity, and they don't claim to know anything beyond what the physical evidence says about the nature of an intelligence that can be detected.

Originally posted by: irishScott
There is no concrete proof. Like religion.

Proof of what? Design theories say that there are scientific methods for detecting intelligence in physical systems. What exactly is religious about that?

 

[Trevelyan]

Originally posted by: BlinderBomber

Originally posted by: Fayd
when i was taught evolution at public schools, we took an hour talking about why teach ONLY evolution, the basic gist of evolution, and a few religious based theories. (intelligent design, creationism, and such) and basically that because there was no consensus on WHICH religious theory to teach, we were taught only evolution. that seems fine to me.

I donut think people should be shielded from alternate viewpoints, like evolutionism vs creationism, or intelligent design. the theory of evolution is just that, a theory. BUT... if you're going to attack some idea like creationism or intelligent design, shouldn't you have at the very least some idea as to what they stand for?

the hatred towards religion these days on this board really does scare me. I keep wondering when it's gonna turn from being vitriolic spew, to being violent.

You should know what they believe, but ID is exactly that, belief. It is not the realm of science and not appropriate for a science class. Teach about it, along with genesis, Jesus, the Holy Spirit, God, Allah, miracles and the biblical stories of Sodom and Bethlehem in a religion class, where those beliefs belong.

ID is not science. It is not a theory and therefore it does not belong in a science classroom.

Wow. You really know nothing about what Intelligent Design actually says, do you?

Tell me, what does Intelligent Design say about the evolution of human beings?

 

[zinfamous]

has the dead horse emoticon been added yet?

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: Trevelyan

Originally posted by: BlinderBomber

Originally posted by: Fayd
when i was taught evolution at public schools, we took an hour talking about why teach ONLY evolution, the basic gist of evolution, and a few religious based theories. (intelligent design, creationism, and such) and basically that because there was no consensus on WHICH religious theory to teach, we were taught only evolution. that seems fine to me.

I donut think people should be shielded from alternate viewpoints, like evolutionism vs creationism, or intelligent design. the theory of evolution is just that, a theory. BUT... if you're going to attack some idea like creationism or intelligent design, shouldn't you have at the very least some idea as to what they stand for?

the hatred towards religion these days on this board really does scare me. I keep wondering when it's gonna turn from being vitriolic spew, to being violent.

You should know what they believe, but ID is exactly that, belief. It is not the realm of science and not appropriate for a science class. Teach about it, along with genesis, Jesus, the Holy Spirit, God, Allah, miracles and the biblical stories of Sodom and Bethlehem in a religion class, where those beliefs belong.

ID is not science. It is not a theory and therefore it does not belong in a science classroom.

Wow. You really know nothing about what Intelligent Design actually says, do you?

Tell me, what does Intelligent Design say about the evolution of human beings?

I guess you buy into the BS about flagellar "design" as supported by the ID proponents?

 

[Trevelyan]

Originally posted by: FoBoT
see my sig, this is the kind of issue that belongs in the state or local realm only, the feds need to keep out of it

Yeah, I agree.

I actually vote AGAINST forcing teachers to teach Creation or Intelligent Design in school.

Why would I want a potentially biased and ardent anti-Creationist to be responsible for telling kids what Creation or Intelligent Design actually teaches? The same thing would happen that is happening in this thread... a bunch of Strawmen arguments would be setup and knocked down, and Creation would be completely misrepresented.

What I AM for is allowing teachers the freedom to criticize evolution, and point out possible holes in the theory. If it really is so airtight, what the hell do we have to be afraid of by doing that? People act like if you criticize evolution its the same as teaching Creation...

I suppose its only a few years before mandatory teaching of evolution in preschool... *sigh*

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
We already had a debate about science and religion and it was concluded that they are not opposites nor is it the goal of scientists to undermine religious beliefs.

if you think these debates ever conclude anything, then you aren't reading very well

Anyway, ID is a sham science. It may be trollish to include in an OP; but it isn't even a quasi-science, as was also mentioned. It is anti-science.

 

[Martin]

Originally posted by: DainBramaged

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: DainBramaged

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: DainBramaged
Good grief...not hard to tell which side YOU fall on, now is it? :roll: Pack your sh!t up and go down to P&N, you stupid fvcking troll.

Who's stupid, or a troll? Sham science is sham science. Nothing I said is a troll. I'm seriously interested to know the percentage of people that would vote either way, although I realize the distribution here will not be exactly in line with that of America.

Coming in here and calling something than some consider to be legitimate "sham science" shows that you are NOT seriously interested. You just want to stir up dissension and strife. Maybe I think that evolution is sham science. So, sham science is sham science. Get that sh!t out of our science classes and put it in world religions. Jesus.

Sham science is fairly easy to separate out from true science. Among other things, the consensus of the scientific community defines the boundary... and luckily, trolls like you on the Internet do not.

Dude, I NEVER even said which side of the issue I was on...all I ever said was that you are a stupid fvcking troll, which is true, and that you have a very biased way of presenting your information, which is also true. Fvck off and go to P&N where they actually like your kind.

Edit: at least your poll edits made it somewhat less biased...it's still P&N though.

One cannot be a "stupid ****** troll" for posting facts. ID is not science, and that's a fact that is true regardless of how much it offends you and your stupid little politically correct post modernist "there is no objective truth and everyone's view of reality is just as valid as anyone else's" bullshit.

 

[Martin]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

Originally posted by: 6000SUX
Intelligent design is a bona-fide threat to the teaching of correct science.

This is where we disagree. I agree that intelligent design doesn't need to be taught in schools, but ID is in no way a threat to science nor should it be considered the opposite theory.

I don't think you know ID is. ID is not evolution plus god (as espoused by the catholic church), it is touted as an alternative scientific theory to evolution which supposedly explains what evolution doesn't.

As you can see from the distressingly large number of idiots that think ID is science (this is after all what proponents want them to think), it is very much a threat to science.