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

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey
Again, I'm not arguing any of this. You can believe what you want. The OP isn't talking about what you and Harvey are trying to make this into and I certainly was not doing so either.

OK. Let's start with the title and post by the OP:

Originally posted by: her209
Would ID-supporters support a non-Christian teaching an intelligent design classes?

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?

If my reading skills aren't failing me, the original question has nothing to do with evolution, the big bang or any definition of the word, THEORY.

Now, let's look at my first post that quoted and responded directly to your first two posts in the thread. In yours, you said:

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.

and

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".

Despite your accusations, I didn't attack you. All I said was, your statements suggest you don't know the definition of a scientific THEORY, and I asked if you did and said that the correct definition shatters your argument.

You replied that you did know the definition, you denied that it had any relevance to your argument and you attacked me, personally.

All one has to do is check your posts in almost any other thread to know that's your typical response to anyone who questions your statements, but in none of your following replies did you bother to define your understanding of the word, THEORY or stop denying you had said exactly what I and others quoted from your previous posts.

You've said repeatedly that we don't know what your beliefs are, and you're "not on the ID bandwagon." Nobody said you were. That hasn't stopped you from continuing to argue that evolution and ID should be presented as alternative THEORIES.

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey
I would image that most ID supporters would be happy with ID being offered along side evolution if they were both presented as theory.

Furthermore, you are the one who raised the subject of other THEORIES, including the big bang:

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".

Even after I posted a precise definition of THEORY, you are the one who kept raising the THEORIES of evolution and the big bang.

Get over it! ID does NOT meet the criteria to be considered a scientific THEORY. That's why I told you the definition of the word, and your misunderstanding of it, shattered your argument.

Unfortunately, that didn't stop you from continuing to attack me and others who question your statements, continuing to misuse the word, THEORY, injecting extraneous subjects in the discussion and denying you posted the words others quoted from your own posts. It's interesting that you STILL haven't told us your understanding of the word, THEORY or why you believe ID has any place being taught as an alternative THEORY in science classes.

I doubt you're capable of replying to this post with anything more than further mindless repetitions of your previous dodges, denials and personal attacks. Please... Shock the living sh8 out of us by showing us you can do better.

 

[Strk]

That's a pretty bold post, Harvey....


(k, that was my incredibly bad joke of the day )

 

[Bumrush99]

Originally posted by: Harvey

/enters Quake 4 mode: pwoned

 

[Banzai042]

Persionally i think that if schools are going to teach evolution it makes sense to also at least mention ID, and say something along the lines of "So that's the theory of evolution, blah blah blah, there are some people who also believe that an intelligent force (or some other phrase here) was the prime mover behind evolution, and even guided it, and there are some that believe that that same intelligent force created life in a different manner" or something to that extent. The bottom line is that mentioning intelligent design and admitting that there is a possibility of a prime mover (which we can't know for sure, we can simply have faith that there is one, or decide for ourselves that there isn't one), is not the same as teaching religion as science. Now here's a question for all of the anti ID people, what happens if somebody in a biology class or other science class that's teaching evolution asks the teacher "Well i happen to believe that God created the universe, what's with this evolution business?" Does that teacher have a right to say that the kid is wrong just because they happen to believe in a form of intelligent design? If yes, then how is directly saying that any form of religion is wrong in the classroom any different from endorsing a specific religious belief, in this case, that there is no God? Teaching that the idea that there is no God as an indisputible fact is just as bad as teaching that the existance of God is an indisputable fact, neither belongs in public education.

 

[Strk]

Originally posted by: Banzai042
Persionally i think that if schools are going to teach evolution it makes sense to also at least mention ID, and say something along the lines of "So that's the theory of evolution, blah blah blah, there are some people who also believe that an intelligent force (or some other phrase here) was the prime mover behind evolution, and even guided it, and there are some that believe that that same intelligent force created life in a different manner" or something to that extent. The bottom line is that mentioning intelligent design and admitting that there is a possibility of a prime mover (which we can't know for sure, we can simply have faith that there is one, or decide for ourselves that there isn't one), is not the same as teaching religion as science. Now here's a question for all of the anti ID people, what happens if somebody in a biology class or other science class that's teaching evolution asks the teacher "Well i happen to believe that God created the universe, what's with this evolution business?" Does that teacher have a right to say that the kid is wrong just because they happen to believe in a form of intelligent design? If yes, then how is directly saying that any form of religion is wrong in the classroom any different from endorsing a specific religious belief, in this case, that there is no God? Teaching that the idea that there is no God as an indisputible fact is just as bad as teaching that the existance of God is an indisputable fact, neither belongs in public education.

The teacher has the right to say the student is entitled to his or her opinion and will move on teaching the class. And as soon as you start saying there might be a creator, you're starting to infuse religion with science.

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: Banzai042
Persionally i think that if schools are going to teach evolution it makes sense to also at least mention ID, and say something along the lines of "So that's the theory of evolution, blah blah blah, there are some people who also believe that an intelligent force (or some other phrase here) was the prime mover behind evolution, and even guided it, and there are some that believe that that same intelligent force created life in a different manner" or something to that extent. The bottom line is that mentioning intelligent design and admitting that there is a possibility of a prime mover (which we can't know for sure, we can simply have faith that there is one, or decide for ourselves that there isn't one), is not the same as teaching religion as science. Now here's a question for all of the anti ID people, what happens if somebody in a biology class or other science class that's teaching evolution asks the teacher "Well i happen to believe that God created the universe, what's with this evolution business?" Does that teacher have a right to say that the kid is wrong just because they happen to believe in a form of intelligent design? If yes, then how is directly saying that any form of religion is wrong in the classroom any different from endorsing a specific religious belief, in this case, that there is no God? Teaching that the idea that there is no God as an indisputible fact is just as bad as teaching that the existance of God is an indisputable fact, neither belongs in public education.

like said before
Evolution = science
ID = not science

teach science in science classes

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Evolution is a Fact and a Theory

To build upon Harvey's excellent posts, it should also be noted that ShadesOfGrey's objections to evolution being taught "as fact rather than theory" are quite baseless. Evolution is a fact, or more accurately a collection of many facts, and it is explained by the theory.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: Strk

Originally posted by: Banzai042
Persionally i think that if schools are going to teach evolution it makes sense to also at least mention ID, and say something along the lines of "So that's the theory of evolution, blah blah blah, there are some people who also believe that an intelligent force (or some other phrase here) was the prime mover behind evolution, and even guided it, and there are some that believe that that same intelligent force created life in a different manner" or something to that extent. The bottom line is that mentioning intelligent design and admitting that there is a possibility of a prime mover (which we can't know for sure, we can simply have faith that there is one, or decide for ourselves that there isn't one), is not the same as teaching religion as science. Now here's a question for all of the anti ID people, what happens if somebody in a biology class or other science class that's teaching evolution asks the teacher "Well i happen to believe that God created the universe, what's with this evolution business?" Does that teacher have a right to say that the kid is wrong just because they happen to believe in a form of intelligent design? If yes, then how is directly saying that any form of religion is wrong in the classroom any different from endorsing a specific religious belief, in this case, that there is no God? Teaching that the idea that there is no God as an indisputible fact is just as bad as teaching that the existance of God is an indisputable fact, neither belongs in public education.

The teacher has the right to say the student is entitled to his or her opinion and will move on teaching the class. And as soon as you start saying there might be a creator, you're starting to infuse religion with science.

If I were the teacher and put into that situation, I believe that I would answer sorta like this:

"There are various religions that teach and believe that their particular God was the creator of the universe as we now know it. However, none of these have any scientific basis nor evidence or proof other than the faith of those that practice these individual religions. The theory of evolution, however, has documented, tested, verifiable scientific evidence and, because of that difference, we will be primarily focused on it while we are in science class."

 

[Strk]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: Strk

Originally posted by: Banzai042
Persionally i think that if schools are going to teach evolution it makes sense to also at least mention ID, and say something along the lines of "So that's the theory of evolution, blah blah blah, there are some people who also believe that an intelligent force (or some other phrase here) was the prime mover behind evolution, and even guided it, and there are some that believe that that same intelligent force created life in a different manner" or something to that extent. The bottom line is that mentioning intelligent design and admitting that there is a possibility of a prime mover (which we can't know for sure, we can simply have faith that there is one, or decide for ourselves that there isn't one), is not the same as teaching religion as science. Now here's a question for all of the anti ID people, what happens if somebody in a biology class or other science class that's teaching evolution asks the teacher "Well i happen to believe that God created the universe, what's with this evolution business?" Does that teacher have a right to say that the kid is wrong just because they happen to believe in a form of intelligent design? If yes, then how is directly saying that any form of religion is wrong in the classroom any different from endorsing a specific religious belief, in this case, that there is no God? Teaching that the idea that there is no God as an indisputible fact is just as bad as teaching that the existance of God is an indisputable fact, neither belongs in public education.

The teacher has the right to say the student is entitled to his or her opinion and will move on teaching the class. And as soon as you start saying there might be a creator, you're starting to infuse religion with science.

If I were the teacher and put into that situation, I believe that I would answer sorta like this:

"There are various religions that teach and believe that their particular God was the creator of the universe as we now know it. However, none of these have any scientific basis nor evidence or proof other than the faith of those that practice these individual religions. The theory of evolution, however, has documented, tested, verifiable scientific evidence and, because of that difference, we will be primarily focused on it while we are in science class."

I like being succinct though

 

[dannybin1742]

"There are various religions that teach and believe that their particular God was the creator of the universe as we now know it. However, none of these have any scientific basis nor evidence or proof other than the faith of those that practice these individual religions. The theory of evolution, however, has documented, tested, verifiable scientific evidence and, because of that difference, we will be primarily focused on it while we are in science class."

not bad.... i'd be ok with that i think

 

[kogase]

ID supporters don't support people not being Christian period, so I think that would follow by extension.

 

[ShadesOfGrey]

Originally posted by: Garth
Evolution is a Fact and a Theory

To build upon Harvey's excellent posts, it should also be noted that ShadesOfGrey's objections to evolution being taught "as fact rather than theory" are quite baseless. Evolution is a fact, or more accurately a collection of many facts, and it is explained by the theory.

You should actually read my posts instead of jump to such conclusions. I did address the issue of Evolution being "fact" in some regards, but certainly evolution as a creation theory is not "fact"(ie, big bang or otherwise).

It would be helpful for people to actually read what people post instead of assume that they mean what you want to argue about.
This thread was about ID and what differences the teacher would make in the equation. Certainly if a teacher presented Evolution and the big bang theory in the correct contect then most of the issue would go away. But yet here we have people still trying to argue them as the same thing, which they are not.

 

[TuxDave]

Originally posted by: XZeroII

Creationism says that the world was created in essentially 6 days (I believe). It is not specified if those are actual earth days, but the point is that *POOF* there was deer. *POOF* there was swordfish. *POOF* there was man. *POOF* there were dinosaurs.

Intelligent Design says that evolution may be correct. But since there is so much complexity, yet so much harmony, there must be some sort of higher power at work. It does not say that this higher power is God necessarily, but it is a possibility. So some sort of higher power helped to organize the start of the universe and guide it to be what it is today. Of course the religious groups believe that the higher power is God, but God is not a fundamental part of Intelligent Design as an actaul theory. If it were taught in schools, God would not be a part of the theory. It mearly allows people to keep an open mind that evolution is not the only thing out there and evolution does not explain everything. There is still more.

As you can see, there is a HUGE difference between the two. Please keep this in mind when debating.

If that is what ID is, it is at BEST a hypothesis. It is also a hypothesis which cannot be measured nor used to predict a wide set of events without direct observation of a 'higher power'. So why should such a hypothesis be given the same validity as a scientific theory?

 

[Shuxclams]

Originally posted by: dannybin1742

So the Big Bang has not been proven and is not a FACT

then how do you explain the red shift at the edge of the universe?


well, last time i check quantum theory was just that, a "theory" by your version of the definition, but last time i checked, you managed to post in this forum on a computer.... how did that happen? submicron manufacturing lithography is based of principals of quantum mechanics which is theory, maybe that shouldn't be taugh... you know because its just a theory with alot of math behind it, and since most people can't grasp differential equations, we'll just say god created the 65nm manufacturing process

and yes i did take quantum chemistry in my undergrad

i don't "claim to be biochemist", i am one, look at my sig

i'm still waiting for these other theorys you speak off..... you sound alot like "rip" but he is banned, you never answer questions

so i'm goign to ask you the same thing i asked him, which after 10 pages of responses never answered

how old is the earth?

about how long have humans walked the earth?

500 Billion for the Earth

4 Billion for the First Life Form

6 Million Years is the current estimate for the first Bi-Pedal Hominid.

With that, it took 496 Billion years for a simple bactieria to form and from that single bit of 'life' it took another 3.94 Billion years for a Hominid to appear.

If we deduce that The H5N1 Virus could take a couple of months to mutate and the newest discovery of a H7NX Strain that could be equally destructive and easier to transmit (H7N2 is already transmissable to Humans) then a good chunk of these ID people who dont believe in science could be "extinct" very very shortly, which afterall is the upside of the whole deal.






SHUX

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey

Originally posted by: Garth
Evolution is a Fact and a Theory

To build upon Harvey's excellent posts, it should also be noted that ShadesOfGrey's objections to evolution being taught "as fact rather than theory" are quite baseless. Evolution is a fact, or more accurately a collection of many facts, and it is explained by the theory.

You should actually read my posts instead of jump to such conclusions. I did address the issue of Evolution being "fact" in some regards, but certainly evolution as a creation theory is not "fact"(ie, big bang or otherwise).

It would be helpful for people to actually read what people post instead of assume that they mean what you want to argue about.
This thread was about ID and what differences the teacher would make in the equation. Certainly if a teacher presented Evolution and the big bang theory in the correct contect then most of the issue would go away. But yet here we have people still trying to argue them as the same thing, which they are not.

evolution has nothing to do with the creation of the universe or the creation of life

 

[Future Shock]

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'.

Newtonian physics is taught in lower-grade schools simply because the mathematics that back it up are on the same level as those children are being taught. As Heisenberg (sp?) quipped "I don't even know what a matrix IS!" when trying to explain his own concept of matrix mathematics...the true mathematics of non-Newtonian physics is way beyond grade school, in fact it is beyond 99% of the population - including the guys that wrote it. When Rutherford was teaching his own ideas on nuclear physics, stories abounded about him not being able to complete his own equations, and telling his classes to go home and work it out for themselves... .

And, as the first poster said (almost correctly), Newtonian physics works well at non-relativistic speeds...which is all any of us are likely to experience in our lifetimes.

Future Shock

 

[Future Shock]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: Strk

Originally posted by: Banzai042
Persionally i think that if schools are going to teach evolution it makes sense to also at least mention ID, and say something along the lines of "So that's the theory of evolution, blah blah blah, there are some people who also believe that an intelligent force (or some other phrase here) was the prime mover behind evolution, and even guided it, and there are some that believe that that same intelligent force created life in a different manner" or something to that extent. The bottom line is that mentioning intelligent design and admitting that there is a possibility of a prime mover (which we can't know for sure, we can simply have faith that there is one, or decide for ourselves that there isn't one), is not the same as teaching religion as science. Now here's a question for all of the anti ID people, what happens if somebody in a biology class or other science class that's teaching evolution asks the teacher "Well i happen to believe that God created the universe, what's with this evolution business?" Does that teacher have a right to say that the kid is wrong just because they happen to believe in a form of intelligent design? If yes, then how is directly saying that any form of religion is wrong in the classroom any different from endorsing a specific religious belief, in this case, that there is no God? Teaching that the idea that there is no God as an indisputible fact is just as bad as teaching that the existance of God is an indisputable fact, neither belongs in public education.

The teacher has the right to say the student is entitled to his or her opinion and will move on teaching the class. And as soon as you start saying there might be a creator, you're starting to infuse religion with science.

If I were the teacher and put into that situation, I believe that I would answer sorta like this:

"There are various religions that teach and believe that their particular God was the creator of the universe as we now know it. However, none of these have any scientific basis nor evidence or proof other than the faith of those that practice these individual religions. The theory of evolution, however, has documented, tested, verifiable scientific evidence and, because of that difference, we will be primarily focused on it while we are in science class."

Nicely put...very nicely put.

FS