evolution and ID in public schools

[BJQ87]

What evidence is "God did it" based on?
What experiments have shown "God did it" to be a theory?
How is "god did it" falsifiable?
How does "God did it" explain vestigial organs?
How does "god did it" Explain ERV's?
How does "god did it" explain that Humans have some of the same mutations in their DNA that chimp's do which could only mean humans and chimps have a common non-human/non-chimp ancestor?
How does "god did it" explain the fossil record that supports evolution?
How does "God did it" explain Nested hierarchies?
How does "god did it" explain Redundant pseudogenes?


Evolution answers all of these questions. If "intelligent design" can't then it's not a theory. It's only a theory if it answers all of the same questions evolution answers AND supports those answers by facts and evidence.

So your changing your wording from Scientific theory to Theory?

I agree that it is not a scientific theory in the sense that it cannot abide by your questions stated above. But to say it is not a theory at all, I dont see that being the case.

Politically speaking, people in America don't like the fact that many of their kids are only being taught evolution in schools as the main theory of how the universe came to be, because statistically most Americans don't agree with that. It is not that ID is a scientific theory, it is that it is another theory for how the universe came to be, a way to say "here's one way many people think it happened, (but in order to reduce influence over young minds toward atheism) here's another way many people think it happened." This objection among theist parents is similar to the objection among atheist parents against prayer in schools. Both cases involve not wanting kids to be brainwashed towards opposing viewpoints, and wanting kids to be raised the way they think their kids should be raised. (Though if I had a kid I wouldn't be so controlling, i'd simply demonstrate my beliefs throughout his/her life processes and my kid would hopefully be attracted to my beliefs instead of me telling my kid what he/she must believe in...this would also allow the kid to make the belief his/her own.) But many parents do feel like they are being violated when their kids are being influenced by opposing viewpoints, in both cases of prayer in schools and evolution. It has little to do with science. It has more to do with the kids, and what is being taught in school, not necessarily the science class. The thing is, if you do introduce this theory, the best time is to introduce it would be in contrast to the scientific theory of evolution- which is taught in science class. It's not like they're going to teach ID in english, history, math, or music class.

 

[Ducky]

So your changing your wording from Scientific theory to Theory?

I agree that it is not a scientific theory in the sense that it cannot abide by your questions stated above. But to say it is not a theory at all, I dont see that being the case.

Politically speaking, people in America don't like the fact that many of their kids are only being taught evolution in schools as the main theory of how the universe came to be, because statistically most Americans don't agree with that. It is not that ID is a scientific theory, it is that it is another theory for how the universe came to be, a way to say "here's one way many people think it happened, (but in order to reduce influence over young minds toward atheism) here's another way many people think it happened." This objection among theist parents is similar to the objection among atheist parents against prayer in schools. Both cases involve not wanting kids to be brainwashed towards opposing viewpoints, and wanting kids to be raised the way they think their kids should be raised. (Though if I had a kid I wouldn't be so controlling, i'd simply demonstrate my beliefs throughout his/her life processes and my kid would hopefully be attracted to my beliefs instead of me telling my kid what he/she must believe in...this would also allow the kid to make the belief his/her own.) But many parents do feel like they are being violated when their kids are being influenced by opposing viewpoints, in both cases of prayer in schools and evolution. It has little to do with science. It has more to do with the kids, and what is being taught in school, not necessarily the science class. The thing is, if you do introduce this theory, the best time is to introduce it would be in contrast to the scientific theory of evolution- which is taught in science class. It's not like they're going to teach ID in english, history, math, or music class.

They should teach it in a comparative religion class, NOT SCIENCE.

You again are missing the point, and are confusing what scientific theory means. If it is not a scientific theory, then it is not for a science class.

Are you being obtuse on purpose, or do you really not understand this?

 

[BJQ87]

Well, that would be a pretty short class, wouldn't it?

From a Buddhist FAQ :


Q: Who created the world?

A: We believe that we cannot answer that. It is beyond our ability to know that at this time. For if there was a creator, with the concept of cause and effect, we must ask who created the creator...


Wow, maybe we should teach that in science class. At least the reasoning is consistant with...I don't know...REALITY!

Reasoning a creator in this case is just as consitent with reality, one chooses between there being a beginning to existence and there being an eternal existence. Some people reason the second because they can't imagine there being no existence whatsoever, unlike most other things that are consistent with reality you can't get a conception of it in your head, that is simply impossible.
The third option would be to say that the universe is eternal and did not have a beginning, or there is an infinite series of universes, I find it odd that most atheists I encounter don't take this option, and believe the big bang started existence.

 

[Ducky]

Reasoning a creator in this case is just as consitent with reality, one chooses between there being a beginning to existence and there being an eternal existence. Some people reason the second because they can't imagine there being no existence whatsoever, unlike most other things that are consistent with reality you can't get a conception of it in your head, that is simply impossible.
The third option would be to say that the universe is eternal and did not have a beginning, or there is an infinite series of universes, I find it odd that most atheists I encounter don't take this option, and believe the big bang started existence.

I take it back, you are not purposely being obtuse, you are a moron.

So exlpain to me why ID shouldn't be taught in a comparative religions class, and should be taught in a science class.

 

[BJQ87]

They should teach it in a comparative religion class, NOT SCIENCE.

You again are missing the point, and are confusing what scientific theory means. If it is not a scientific theory, then it is not for a science class.

Are you being obtuse on purpose, or do you really not understand this?

I am not missing the point, am not confusing what scientific theory means. That I already have cleared up so drop it. The only disagreement you have is that it has to be scientific to teach it in science class, that they should teach it in comparitive religion class. I would definately agree with you if they actually had that class in public secondary education and below, we are not discussing college.

 

[Ducky]

I am not missing the point, am not confusing what scientific theory means. That I already have cleared up so drop it. The only disagreement you have is that it has to be scientific to teach it in science class, that they should teach it in comparitive religion class. I would definately agree with you if they actually had that class in public secondary education and below, we are not discussing college.

So should we teach literature in a science class? That's not scientific either.

Why is it you think they do not have comparative religion classes in secondary ed?

 

[BJQ87]

I take it back, you are not purposely being obtuse, you are a moron.

So exlpain to me why ID shouldn't be taught in a comparative religions class, and should be taught in a science class.

I'm a moron because of your misconception of the context of the argument? I'm not saying your a moron though, misconceptions are excusable.

 

[Ducky]

I am not missing the point, am not confusing what scientific theory means. That I already have cleared up so drop it. The only disagreement you have is that it has to be scientific to teach it in science class, that they should teach it in comparitive religion class. I would definately agree with you if they actually had that class in public secondary education and below, we are not discussing college.

So should we teach literature in a science class? That's not scientific either.

Why is it you think they do not have comparative religion classes in secondary ed?

 

[Ducky]

...double post

 

[Ducky]

...double post.

 

[BJQ87]

So should we teach literature in a science class? That's not scientific either.

Why is it you think they do not have comparative religion classes in secondary ed?

I think they do not have comparitive religion classes in most secondary ed.

 

[BJQ87]

excuse my small misconception, I didn't use it to label you a moron at least.

 

[Ducky]

I think they do not have comparitive religion classes in most secondary ed.

And why not?


In case you're not following me here, I'll spell it out.


1) science class is about science.
2) ID is not a scientific theory, it has no testable hypothesis and is nothing but speculation about metaphysical and philosophical ideas.
3) It should not be taught in science class because we've already had this debate. It started with scopes monkey trial and ended with the 1987 supreme court decision that creationism is not to be taught in a science class.

 

[BJQ87]

So should we teach literature in a science class? That's not scientific either.

If there is literature that (even if it is not science) relates very well to the topic at hand and theres a load of people who are for reasonable reasons protesting and petitioning and causing a lot of debate then perhaps we should take a look at the issue and consider it. But that is not the really the case is it?

 

[BJQ87]

It should not be taught in science class because we've already had this debate.

if that were an authoritive reason then there would be a lot more problems with our society right now. If the supreme court said something and then everyone accepted it as the right thing to do things would be alot different right now. Think about MLK, malcom x, the femnist movement, etc.
I dont think people opposed to abortion are going to give up just because the supreme court said that it shouldn't be deemed "murder".

 

[Ducky]

If there is literature that (even if it is not science) relates very well to the topic at hand and theres a load of people who are for reasonable reasons protesting and petitioning and causing a lot of debate then perhaps we should take a look at the issue and consider it. But that is not the really the case is it?

Nor is it the case with ID. There is no science in it. Just like there is no science in Shakespeare. That's why they have seperate classes.

 

[Ducky]

if that were an authoritive reason then there would be a lot more problems with our society right now. If the supreme court said something and then everyone accepted it as the right thing to do things would be alot different right now. Think about MLK, malcom x, the femnist movement, etc.
I dont think people opposed to abortion are going to give up just because the supreme court said that it shouldn't be deemed "murder".

non-sequiter hiding in a strawman.

Try again.

 

[BJQ87]

Originally Posted by BJQ87 :
If there is literature that (even if it is not science) relates very well to the topic at hand and theres a load of people who are for reasonable reasons protesting and petitioning and causing a lot of debate then perhaps we should take a look at the issue and consider it. But that is not the really the case is it?



Nor is it the case with ID. There is no science in it. Just like there is no science in Shakespeare. That's why they have seperate classes.

So ID is not related to the theory of evolution? And there aren't people petitioning and causing a lot of debate?

 

[Ducky]

So ID is not related to the theory of evolution? And there aren't people petitioning and causing a lot of debate?

Do you really think ID is a scientific theory about evolution?

It is a theory about God wrapped in scientific jargon in an attempt to look scientific.

Get this straight: Evolutionary theory does not address the concept of God. It operates on emperical evidence and peer reviewed study.

While we're at it, name 1 research project doing research on ID. Name 1 peer reviewed journal that published an ID paper wherein the ID paper discusses ID research and data achieved from said research.

It's not science.


edited to clarify

 

[BJQ87]

Do you really think ID is a scientific theory about evolution?

It is a theory about God wrapped in scientific jargon in an attempt to look scientific.

While we're at it, name 1 research project doing research on ID. Name 1 peer reviewed journal that published an ID paper wherein the ID paper discusses ID research and data achieved from said research.

It's not science.

When I say related, do I mean it is scientific? No I already told you I dont agree that it is scientific.