Why thank you.

You made me go back to page 2 just to see why you were thanking people. What a waste

[QUOTE=Victor Van Dort]What a waste :([/QUOTE]

I know, it was a bit rubbish wasn't it?

The belief in one or more creators doesn't necessarily involve "faith". There are a few of us out there that base our beliefs on logic and observation. We belong to no organized religion, and believe that both science and religion rely on faith. The religious have faith in their saviors and prophets while many scientists have faith in an always existing universe or spontaneous creation. To many of us, an always existing universe just might be the creators, or spontaneous creation just might be the result of the creators, who may very well live in another realm of existence, putting the wheels of our creation in to motion. That may sound ridiculous to many of you, but then so does a theory of something, coming from nothing (which can never be witnessed). I find that both sides on this debate are generally close-minded and arrogant, and I can't comprehend how they overlook the fact that they're so very much alike. The truth is that science and religion can co-exist, there are times in human history when they have (just ask Newton for example), and to read/hear one side pretending to be more enlightened than the other always gives me a good chuckle.

I really don't see how a characterized unknown and a mechanical unknown are any different.

I see athiests and christians saying the SAME thing, except one characterizes the unknown and makes up fancy places in the clouds.

JediKirby

Nonsense. Science doesn't rely on "faith" or "belief". It relies on using a standard, accepted set of methods to constantly question reality. There is no such thing as "truth", only observable evidence and proposed explanation. You don't "believe" in theories, you accept them as being the most comprehensive scientific explanation for a given phenomenon. No faith required, only acceptance and understanding of the scientific process.

The real debate isn't whether science and religion can co-exist, it's whether they should be compared in the first place.

In history class my teacher wasn't allowed to say "God" (we were talking about the Greeks I think) So it came up a lot. So she wrote "Gode" instead and also pronounced it "gode" When we asked her why she said that the school wouldn't let her say god or write it down. :p She was my favouite teacher ever.

Hahaha. America is such a backward country.

like, the fact that no one around today has been alive for more than 120 years.. so it's nearly impossible to prove something that happened however many billion's of years ago.

I'm saying Scientist have been proved wrong many times before. Because no one can put 100% proof on a "given phenomenon" such as the one on topic. It takes a bit of "belief" for something you can't 100% prove obviously. Hey, just like faith in a religion one supports.

Why the hell are you guys fighting over it.. do you really think it's going to do anything for the outcome of the problem.. probably NOT.

Maybe they shouldn't teach the history of earth PERIOD in public schools. That would solve the problem.

now that is funny...sounds like a cool teacher

I have one or two of those at Uni, (Prof. T, maeve ) politically incorrect and they know it, but avoid getting in trouble because they do things so ever so slightly different or are the head of department and can do what they like :p

As any policeman will tell you, 'eye witness evidence' is notoriously bad and not a reliable measure of events. And yet they still manage to piece together a crime scene. They don't do that by asking people, they do it by assembling data. Policemen collect data after a few days. Scientists collect data after a few million years. Data is data, and the two do exactly the same thing with it.



'Science' hasn't been proven wrong - scientists have been proven wrong by other scientists. This system of constantly 'proving wrong' is inherent to science, it is how science works and how science is constantly providing the answers that religion fails to. Religion is constantly infallable and that is precisely why it is constantly wrong and is constantly the most inaccurate and unreliable model of reality there is.

Before you quote I suggest you try to understand what's being said. The whole point of my post is that science is NOT about proof, it's about providing possible explanations using a specified set of rules and methods. Scientific theories are meant to be falsified - by other scientific theories. You can't play if you don't follow the rules. Two completely incompatible theories about the same phenomenon can be valid if they qualify as scientific, meaning the tools they use are acceptible byt he scientific community. For instance, loop quantum gravity and M theory are two entirely different theories on the link between gravity and quantum mechanics. Neither of them are fact or proof, they are simply "valid" because none of the predictions they make have been falsified yet. It doesn't mean they're true.

Intelligent design is an attempt to present a non-scientific concept by means of a scientific framework, partly by taking advantage of the general public's misunderstanding of science and the scientific process, and openly questioning the methods of science themselves. That is what I and many others find infuriating about ID.

Wait. Science is about disproving? Then what the hell did I spend 16 weeks of arduous labor on basically proving techniques for?

...unless mathematics isn't considered a science. Is it?

You have to be good at defending things from other scientists who want to disprove them!

Yay. More impiricists who think they are not presuppositionalists.


Science does not integrate into philosophy.

I didn't read all of the posts, nor will I check this often.

I think there was/is an intelligent designer, and it's perfectly scientific to believe such a thing.

Forget religion, but from a purely scientific point of view I think intelligent design makes really good sense.

Sorry, I don't speak Kwietese. :p

Reading is good for you

But Intelligent Design is not about science. It's simply a means for Christian fundamentalists to justify their own beliefs, and, in the case of teaching it in schools, to push it on others.

Why are you all so certain that there was no intelligent design? What theory or belief does that shatter? Why is it so important that things happened on their own?
Primate, the problem is that people don't take it as scientific. They brush is off as crazy religious jargon.

Dude, if you want to participate in a debate, read what others have to say first. No one is brushing off the concept of God or an intelligent designer. What we're against is intelligent design falsly presenting itself as sound science, which it is NOT, and misleading the public (including our esteemed president). Before you argue that it's good science, why don't you wiki this.

[edit] here's a choice quote:
any hypothesis that does not make testable predictions is simply not science

Okay, I think I see what you're trying to say, and I understand.

But you can't say that there isn't an intelligent designer... so... um...

Yeah.

Do I think intelligent design should be taught in school? Not really, unless you go to a private school. But I also don't think people should be taught that intelligent design is false. It's completely possible, and I don't see science ever being able to say other wise.
In biology, I don't think evolution should really be taught, either. Go ahead and expound on how things -are- but it doesn't seem like you'd be losing too much to leave out some evolution-ish thought.

And it's absolutely amazing how many innocent people get thrown in jail.

[QUOTE=IRG SithLord]And it's absolutely amazing how many innocent people get thrown in jail.[/QUOTE]

Yeah like Galileo. OOOH BURN.

You can't say there isn't a penguin on my head!

Right. So why teach in schools that there is or isn't a penguin on your head?

They don't. :p

Let me simplify things for Axis who seems to be completely missing the point.

Intelligent Design should not be taught alongside Evolution because it is not scientific, and therefore should not be taught in science lessons. In fact, it shouldn't even be mentioned. This means nobody is saying the notion of intelligent design is WRONG but that it has no place being treated as science unless sufficient evidence for an intelligent designer emerges. Trust me, all those arguments supporting Intelligent Design are blown away quite casually and neatly by a decent understanding of the Theory of Evolution.

Intelligent Design might very well have a place in a religion class, although it's better just to teach what all the major religions think about creation than to promote a single pseudo-scientific babble with no real religious OR scientific merit.

Schools aren't teaching that ID is wrong, they are just not allowed to teach it as a scientific idea, because it's not.

Quite right Detty, just one correction:
Even if God appears tomorrow morning in Times Square and proves his existence, intelligent design as a theory is still not scientific. It's not about evidence, it's about practicing proper science.

Just noticed this, deserves a quote :p

Mkay.

I put that in intentionally, I was meaning to say that should sufficient evidence emerge then a PROPER intelligent design theory can be formulated. As it stands, the theory is based on gross misunderstandings of evolution.

Perhaps. If you focus only on one definition of faith. How about this one - "Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing."

Much like how most Christians focus on a general term of "theory" instead of one that's appropriate for context. Familiar? :p

Did you know that only the first and last letters of a word are usually used to determine their meaning. Unfortuneatly I'm not sure I got those right.

Well the first one is just a mispelling, but the second one I don't think has ever existed in the english language.

! ATTENTION !

If, at this point in the thread, you still do not understand why intelligent design should not be taught in schools, I suggest you do the following:

Re-read this thread, with particular care taken for posts by Fardreamer, Detty and Mort-Hog.

If you still do not understand, do the following:

Kill yourself.

I think it should be made clear, however, that given enough evidence, a theory could be considered damn close to truth. Theories are applied every day (take any electronic device you own for example), but the engineers who work on these devices don't have any doubt about well-supported theories. They don't go, "oh, well we can't do that, because it's just a theory."

Our language really needs a word for truth when it means "completely true, proven, without a shadow of a doubt" and just "Possibly or most likely true, 'for all intents and purposes true'" or something.

I guess what I'm trying to point out is that theory doesn't imply uncertainty. It's not like, "oh, that calculus thing is just a theory, so forget that."

I beleive in an intelligent designer, but that doesnt mean that particular wording of the theory is good.


[pondering]
How could the universe suddenly exist without something to create it? Of course, that doesnt explain what created the creator, so its an unsolvable logicloop. Thus, this whole arguement is stupid, and either you except that the universe does exist somehow, or you go insane.
[/pondering]


(Scientists are generally really really closeminded)

If you're going to make ludicrous claims which perpetuate the idea that you are a close minded religous zealot who is afraid of science because it threatens his beliefs, you had better back it up.

I haven't read more than the last page of responses, but I'm going to go ahead and say THANK YOU to the judge for realizing the difference between Science and Intelligent Design.

Science is based in Empiricism. A methodology created to analyze and interpret physical/measurable/natural data.

As of right now, there is no instrument (aside from our dispositions) with which to measure supernatural phenomena. ID theory is based on supernatural phenomena and is therefore excluded from scientific analysis because it's based on the assumption of the supernatural, something which science by its definition cannot define. This is why there is no place for ID in a science classroom. Save ID for a Comparative Religions course, not biology.

And Evolution != Big Bang. Likewise, the Theory of Evolution should in no way be seen as an attack to religious faith, or as a substitute.

Sorry if this has already been brought up and discussed, but from reading some of the responses from what I perceive to be the ID-team, they're still not understanding the tenets of Empirical Methods nor Science.