Would ID-supporters support a non-Christian teaching an intelligent design classes?

[her209]

It seems to me that the people pushing for intelligent design to be taught in science classes mostly come from a Christian background. If the situation ever came up where a non-Christian were hired to teach an intelligent design class, would they be accepted or rejceted by those same people pushing for intelligent design to be taught and why or why not?

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: her209
It seems to me that the people pushing for intelligent design to be taught in science classes mostly come from a Christian background. If the situation ever came up where a non-Christian were hired to teach an intelligent design class, would they be accepted or rejceted by those same people pushing for intelligent design to be taught and why or why not?

Good and valid question.

I'm sure those same Religious Wingnuts pushing ID here would not be thrilled if Allah was being pushed as the one behind ID.

 

[ShadesOfGrey]

I think the biggest issue at play here is that evolution is presented as fact and no other theory is presented at all. I would image that most ID supporters would be happy with ID being offered along side evolution if they were both presented as theory. But I'm not on the ID wagon. I don't think another option has to be presented. I'd be happy if they would present evolution as a theory and note that there are alternative theories and that none have been proven.

 

[JustAnAverageGuy]

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey
I think the biggest issue at play here is that evolution is presented as fact and no other theory is presented at all. I would image that most ID supporters would be happy with ID being offered along side evolution if they were both presented as theory. But I'm not on the ID wagon. I don't think another option has to be presented. I'd be happy if they would present evolution as a theory and note that there are alternative theories and that none have been proven.

Aside from the fact that ID isn't a scientific theory.

I would be support the idea of evolution being taught in biology and ID taught in a religious class of some sort.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey
I think the biggest issue at play here is that evolution is presented as fact and no other theory is presented at all. I would image that most ID supporters would be happy with ID being offered along side evolution if they were both presented as theory. But I'm not on the ID wagon. I don't think another option has to be presented. I'd be happy if they would present evolution as a theory and note that there are alternative theories and that none have been proven.

Evolution is taught as a scientific theory... so is newtonian physics, even though it's wrong.

I think you actually understand this one, based on your ID bandwagon comment, but a theory in science is not the same as a layman's theory, like ID, which would be better described as conjecture.

 

[Uhtrinity]

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey
I think the biggest issue at play here is that evolution is presented as fact and no other theory is presented at all. I would image that most ID supporters would be happy with ID being offered along side evolution if they were both presented as theory. But I'm not on the ID wagon. I don't think another option has to be presented. I'd be happy if they would present evolution as a theory and note that there are alternative theories and that none have been proven.

I wouldn't have a problem with another theory being presented, assuming it is an actual scientific theory. Not just creationism repackaged as a pseudo-science.

 

[ShadesOfGrey]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey
I think the biggest issue at play here is that evolution is presented as fact and no other theory is presented at all. I would image that most ID supporters would be happy with ID being offered along side evolution if they were both presented as theory. But I'm not on the ID wagon. I don't think another option has to be presented. I'd be happy if they would present evolution as a theory and note that there are alternative theories and that none have been proven.

Evolution is taught as a scientific theory... so is newtonian physics, even though it's wrong.

I think you actually understand this one, based on your ID bandwagon comment, but a theory in science is not the same as a layman's theory, like ID, which would be better described as conjecture.

It was not taught to me as a theory at the public highschool I went to, it and the "big bang" theory were taught as "fact". But I did have a pretty freaky Bio teacher. My point is that it needs to be presented in a fashion that doesn't suggest it is "fact" or "proven".

 

[EatSpam]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: her209
It seems to me that the people pushing for intelligent design to be taught in science classes mostly come from a Christian background. If the situation ever came up where a non-Christian were hired to teach an intelligent design class, would they be accepted or rejceted by those same people pushing for intelligent design to be taught and why or why not?

Good and valid question.

I'm sure those same Religious Wingnuts pushing ID here would not be thrilled if Allah was being pushed as the one behind ID.

or the Flying Spaghetti Monster!!!

 

[Uhtrinity]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey
I think the biggest issue at play here is that evolution is presented as fact and no other theory is presented at all. I would image that most ID supporters would be happy with ID being offered along side evolution if they were both presented as theory. But I'm not on the ID wagon. I don't think another option has to be presented. I'd be happy if they would present evolution as a theory and note that there are alternative theories and that none have been proven.

Evolution is taught as a scientific theory... so is newtonian physics, even though it's wrong.

I think you actually understand this one, based on your ID bandwagon comment, but a theory in science is not the same as a layman's theory, like ID, which would be better described as conjecture.

How is newtonian physics wrong? It explains actions / reactions at relativistic speeds, exactly what it claims. Without Newtonian physics our buildings and bridges wouldn't stand, and our planes would fall from the sky ID on the other hand has no science to it all, it is a non-science theory of creation.

 

[Uhtrinity]

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey
I think the biggest issue at play here is that evolution is presented as fact and no other theory is presented at all. I would image that most ID supporters would be happy with ID being offered along side evolution if they were both presented as theory. But I'm not on the ID wagon. I don't think another option has to be presented. I'd be happy if they would present evolution as a theory and note that there are alternative theories and that none have been proven.

Evolution is taught as a scientific theory... so is newtonian physics, even though it's wrong.

I think you actually understand this one, based on your ID bandwagon comment, but a theory in science is not the same as a layman's theory, like ID, which would be better described as conjecture.

It was not taught to me as a theory at the public highschool I went to, it and the "big bang" theory were taught as "fact". But I did have a pretty freaky Bio teacher. My point is that it needs to be presented in a fashion that doesn't suggest it is "fact" or "proven".

I have never seen a science text that presents either of those as fact. Ie. 'Theory' of Evolution, or The Big Bang 'Theory. Don't blame a few rogue science teachers for misrepresenting the material.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Uhtrinity
How is newtonian physics wrong? It explains actions / reactions at relativistic speeds, exactly what it claims. ID on the otehr hand has no science to it all, it is a non-science theory of creation.

It's a good first-guess estimator. But we have enough additional evidence about how things move and how they are constructed to know that Newtonian physics is only useful as a tool, it's not 'the way things are'.

 

[EatSpam]

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey
I think the biggest issue at play here is that evolution is presented as fact and no other theory is presented at all. I would image that most ID supporters would be happy with ID being offered along side evolution if they were both presented as theory. But I'm not on the ID wagon. I don't think another option has to be presented. I'd be happy if they would present evolution as a theory and note that there are alternative theories and that none have been proven.

The process by which evolution occurs is presented as a scientific theory. That evolution occurs is fact, it has been observed in nature. The Big Bang Theory and other theories about the origins of life and the universe are not the same thing as evolution.

ID is fundie Christianity with the word Gawd replaced with Intelligent Designer, the IDiot. Save it for church or a humanites class. Its not science.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey
I think the biggest issue at play here is that evolution is presented as fact and no other theory is presented at all. I would image that most ID supporters would be happy with ID being offered along side evolution if they were both presented as theory. But I'm not on the ID wagon. I don't think another option has to be presented. I'd be happy if they would present evolution as a theory and note that there are alternative theories and that none have been proven.

It was not taught to me as a theory at the public highschool I went to, it and the "big bang" theory were taught as "fact". But I did have a pretty freaky Bio teacher. My point is that it needs to be presented in a fashion that doesn't suggest it is "fact" or "proven".

Your post suggests you don't know the definition of a scientific theory. Do you?

Clue -- Evolution and the "big bang" meet the criteria. "Intelligent Design" does not.

Clue -- The correct answer shatters your argument.

If you don't know, just cop to it, and I'll give you the answer in a follow up post.

 

[ShadesOfGrey]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey
I think the biggest issue at play here is that evolution is presented as fact and no other theory is presented at all. I would image that most ID supporters would be happy with ID being offered along side evolution if they were both presented as theory. But I'm not on the ID wagon. I don't think another option has to be presented. I'd be happy if they would present evolution as a theory and note that there are alternative theories and that none have been proven.

It was not taught to me as a theory at the public highschool I went to, it and the "big bang" theory were taught as "fact". But I did have a pretty freaky Bio teacher. My point is that it needs to be presented in a fashion that doesn't suggest it is "fact" or "proven".

Your post suggests you don't know the definition of a scientific theory. Do you?

Clue -- Evolution and the "big bang" meet the criteria. "Intelligent Design" does not.

Clue -- The correct answer shatters your argument.

If you don't know, just cop to it, and I'll give you the answer in a follow up post.

I do know the meaning. It doesn't change my position at all. If you would actually read what I post instead of assuming and then trying to jump on an argument that isn't there, you wouldn't look like an @ss all the time.

I am not on the ID bus as I said before so don't try to attack me as if I were.



Uhtrinity - I am blaming a few rogue teachers because they are the problem. They are not presenting the information in the correct context. If people saw that evolution was being put in the proper context we wouldn't have near the amount of trouble with this issue as we do.

 

[EatSpam]

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey
I am not on the ID bus as I said before so don't try to attack me as if I were.

But you are a fundie/evanglical Christian, right?

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey
I do know the meaning.

Great. Post your accepted definition so we know where you're coming from.

It doesn't change my position at all. If you would actually read what I post instead of assuming and then trying to jump on an argument that isn't there, you wouldn't look like an @ss all the time.

Thanks for the personal attack. Speaking of asses, you can kiss mine. :lips:

I am not on the ID bus as I said before so don't try to attack me as if I were.
Tha's one out of three. Your credibility is about the same Bush's.

Uhtrinity - I am blaming a few rogue teachers because they are the problem. They are not presenting the information in the correct context. If people saw that evolution was being put in the proper context we wouldn't have near the amount of trouble with this issue as we do.

Back to the question you never answered -- What is your understanding of the definition of the word, THEORY?

waiting... :clock:

 

[Uhtrinity]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Uhtrinity
How is newtonian physics wrong? It explains actions / reactions at relativistic speeds, exactly what it claims. ID on the otehr hand has no science to it all, it is a non-science theory of creation.

It's a good first-guess estimator. But we have enough additional evidence about how things move and how they are constructed to know that Newtonian physics is only useful as a tool, it's not 'the way things are'.

An estimator only if you don't input all of the varibles. The more varibles you use the more accurate it becomes. The only times newtonian physics breaks down is when you start talking about velocities approaching c or matter on the nuclear level.

 

[Kadarin]

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey
I think the biggest issue at play here is that evolution is presented as fact and no other theory is presented at all. I would image that most ID supporters would be happy with ID being offered along side evolution if they were both presented as theory. But I'm not on the ID wagon. I don't think another option has to be presented. I'd be happy if they would present evolution as a theory and note that there are alternative theories and that none have been proven.

Please give an example of ANY OTHER theory that can take the place of the theory of evolution, that is backed up by any observable, testable, and scientifically accepted evidence.

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey
I think the biggest issue at play here is that evolution is presented as fact and no other theory is presented at all. I would image that most ID supporters would be happy with ID being offered along side evolution if they were both presented as theory. But I'm not on the ID wagon. I don't think another option has to be presented. I'd be happy if they would present evolution as a theory and note that there are alternative theories and that none have been proven.

Outside of math nothing has been proven. Should every thing in school be labeled as just a theory. I can see it now history "It is only a theory WWII happened it has never been proven." Unless you are will to apply the same standard to all teaching please STFU when it comes to evolution.

 

[ShadesOfGrey]

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey
I am not on the ID bus as I said before so don't try to attack me as if I were.

But you are a fundie/evanglical Christian, right?

No, I'm not a "fundie"

 

[ShadesOfGrey]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey
I do know the meaning.

Great. Post your accepted definition so we know where you're coming from.

It doesn't change my position at all. If you would actually read what I post instead of assuming and then trying to jump on an argument that isn't there, you wouldn't look like an @ss all the time.

Thanks for the personal attack. Speaking of asses, you can kiss mine. :lips:

I am not on the ID bus as I said before so don't try to attack me as if I were.
Tha's one out of three. Your credibility is about the same Bush's.

Uhtrinity - I am blaming a few rogue teachers because they are the problem. They are not presenting the information in the correct context. If people saw that evolution was being put in the proper context we wouldn't have near the amount of trouble with this issue as we do.

Back to the question you never answered -- What is your understanding of the definition of the word, THEORY?

waiting... :clock:

Again, you are trying to attack me for an argument I've never made. I don't care if you want to teach evolution, it just always has to be taught in the proper context. Example being that in my public highschool it was taught as FACT not as theory. Sure the teacher was a bit nuts but that doesn't excuse the improper teaching. I also did not say that something else must be taugh along side like Astaroth33 seems to think. What I said was that "I don't think another option has to be presented." What part of that do you extremists not understand? You attempts to attack me because I dared mention that your sacred cow must be taught in the proper context is hilarious and quite telling. Nothing new though, it seems that Harvey has this nasty little habbit of attacking people by twisting their argument into something that it is not.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Originally posted by: Uhtrinity

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Uhtrinity
How is newtonian physics wrong? It explains actions / reactions at relativistic speeds, exactly what it claims. ID on the otehr hand has no science to it all, it is a non-science theory of creation.

It's a good first-guess estimator. But we have enough additional evidence about how things move and how they are constructed to know that Newtonian physics is only useful as a tool, it's not 'the way things are'.

An estimator only if you don't input all of the varibles. The more varibles you use the more accurate it becomes. The only times newtonian physics breaks down is when you start talking about velocities approaching c or matter on the nuclear level.

Do you have any idea how much of our technologic world depends on understanding atomic behavior and the properties/behavior of light?

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Uhtrinity
An estimator only if you don't input all of the varibles. The more varibles you use the more accurate it becomes. The only times newtonian physics breaks down is when you start talking about velocities approaching c or matter on the nuclear level.

I didn't say it wasn't quite accurate under certain conditions. I said it wasn't right. And it isn't.

 

[Ronstang]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

I think you actually understand this one, based on your ID bandwagon comment, but a theory in science is not the same as a layman's theory, like ID, which would be better described as conjecture.

Originally posted by: Uhtrinity

I wouldn't have a problem with another theory being presented, assuming it is an actual scientific theory. Not just creationism repackaged as a pseudo-science.

Exactly, Intelligent Design is nothing more then religious people trying to package their beliefs into someting resembling a scientific theory so it can be taught in school. Show me the science or keep your beliefs out of the schools....it really is that simple.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey
Again, you are trying to attack me for an argument I've never made.

Again, you are trying to duck a simple question by accusing me of attacking you. I did NOT attack you. I just asked if you if you knew the correct, scientific definition of the word, THEORY. It would help if you want anyone to understand what you mean.

I don't care if you want to teach evolution, it just always has to be taught in the proper context. Example being that in my public highschool it was taught as FACT not as theory.

And once again, your statement suggests you don't know the definition of the word. The more you dodge and BS, the more I'm beginning to suspect you don't know the meaning of the word, FACT, either.

Stop trying to duck the question. It isn't that hard to find. Clue -- Google is your friend. :laugh: