Nova's judgment day: Intelligent design on trial

[shropshire 0]

Quote

Quote

There's no way on gods' Earth that ID should ever be discussed in a science lesson.

That is so prefectly oxymoronic; I'd say sig line worthy.

[takes bow]

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[shropshire 0]

Quote

Also, if ID is not science then neither is archaeology or the search for intelligent life.

You what? You're having a laugh.

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[shropshire 0]

Quote

Quote

Ya know what would be a real drag? If those opposed to ID are wrong. I mean if those of us who Do believe in GZod are wrong, no biggie, we take a long dirt nap, it's over. But oh man what if everything in the Book is true? Be a bummer of a time to find out. just my two cents. I'd write more, but I also know when to keep my mouth shut

hmm, What if the Muslims are right and everyone else is wrong? What if the Hindus are right and everyone else is wrong?....

There are so many what if's, which one do I choose? I would rather go with the evidence, rational thinking.

And what happened to all those people that dies before god was invented?

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[jclalor 12]

Im guessing you did not watch the show, It was shown that ID was nothing more than creationism repackaged as science. The book of "Of pandas and people" was written to promote creationism in public schools but was later ruled illegal to use in public schools. So what do they do? Use the same book and just remove the word "creationism" and replace it with "ID" Judge Jones who ruled on the Dover case ( A staunch christian and Bush apointtee ) ruled that ID was NOT science and can not be taught in public schools. I was embarressed for the supporters of ID in this show, They were completly out classed, but I guess that happens when you try to put superstitions against science.

[billvon 2,990]

>Once again seperation of church and state is not in the constituation.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . ."

It's right there; look for it. The "separation of church and state" came from a letter by Jefferson who was explaining what the First Amendment meant:

"I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State."

>Also, if ID is not science then neither is archaeology or the search for intelligent life.

Archaeology is a science because it makes testable predictions about the life of previous cultures based on recovered artifacts. If you, for example, predict that discovering an aqueduct means an ancient society irrigated their field, you can later use isotope assays to determine what areas in that society were cultivated. If they were near the aqueduct termiations, you have added support for your theory. If they were not near the aqueduct terminations, then your theory has lost support, and you may have to abandon it.

SETI is a scientific search for intelligent life. If no evidence is found, then they must conclude that there are no radio-using intelligent life forms in our area. If evidence is found, then that will suggest new paths of study. If that additional study finds additional proof, then we might conclude that there is intelligent life near us.

Intelligent design is completely different. It is based on God. Never, ever will an ID adherent say "Huh! Would you look at that - it's possible to create an RNA-based self replicating life form using only primal gases. Therefore God probably doesn't exist." It does not produce testable hypotheses; it is merely a propaganda organ for God.

[maadmax 0]

I also agree that scientific instruction in schools should be limited to scientific facts. The problem arises when scientific scholars start preaching their scientific religion as scientific fact. A few amino acids or hydrocarbons found in some experimental primordial like stew in no way eliminates the existence of God, or His involvement in the history of the universe. Nor does this enlightened scientific religion provide any answers for the spiritual depravity that we find ourselves in.

[jakee 1,489]

Quote

I also agree that scientific instruction in schools should be limited to scientific facts.

Teaching only facts is not teaching science at all! The definition of fact is very precise, and very limited.

Quote

Nor does this enlightened scientific religion provide any answers for the spiritual depravity that we find ourselves in.

Talk about a non-sequitur Since you brought it up though, your religion has had near enough 2000 years of dominance in western society to try and lift us out of "spiritual depravity" - so how come it's failed?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[beowulf 1]

What is "spirtual depravity"?

From what I have seen of your writings here on dz.com it appears to be not believing in the same religion as you.

[billvon 2,990]

>A few amino acids or hydrocarbons found in some experimental primordial
>like stew in no way eliminates the existence of God . . .

Of course not, and no one here claims that it does.

>or His involvement in the history of the universe.

Actually, science teaches that natural laws, rather than a pantheon of mythical figures, determine the history of the universe - which is as it should be.

>Nor does this enlightened scientific religion provide any answers for the
>spiritual depravity that we find ourselves in.

Right. And a class about religion run by an extremist nut provides no answers as to why a nuclear reactor works. Why should it?

[pirana 0]

Quote

The show I think you are refering to is another Nova " The bible's buried secrets" This was also a very good show.

Yes, that was it. Thank you. I missed that it was a Nova installment.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[pirana 0]

Quote

Im guessing you did not watch the show, It was shown that ID was nothing more than creationism repackaged as science. The book of "Of pandas and people" was written to promote creationism in public schools but was later ruled illegal to use in public schools. So what do they do? Use the same book and just remove the word "creationism" and replace it with "ID" Judge Jones who ruled on the Dover case ( A staunch christian and Bush apointtee ) ruled that ID was NOT science and can not be taught in public schools. I was embarressed for the supporters of ID in this show, They were completly out classed, but I guess that happens when you try to put superstitions against science.

IIRC, didn't the court get their hands on a working draft that actually had creationism crossed out and intelligent design substituted in the margin?

That moment had to be similar to when Toto drew back the curtain to reveal the true Wizard of Oz.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[pirana 0]

Quote

On second thought, what if it really IS all about the FSM? Would non-believers be turned into pasta sauce???

No. I believe the penalty has something to do with His Noodly Appendage.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[pirana 0]

Quote

A few amino acids or hydrocarbons found in some experimental primordial like stew in no way eliminates the existence of God, or His involvement in the history of the universe. Nor does this enlightened scientific religion provide any answers for the spiritual depravity that we find ourselves in.

I do not believe you'll find many reputable scientists, or even just casual adherents to evolution or natural selection claiming that either negates the existence of God, or of any God.

If a teacher professes that to students, they should be axed as surely as the science teacher injecting ID. They are guilty of false logic. BUUUUUUURRRRN THEM!

Scientific religion? Must be the Day of the Oxymoron. (and it is the anniversary of the 1st publishing of Origins of Species).

How do you define scientific religion? I've honestly never heard that before.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[jakee 1,489]

Quote

(and it is the anniversary of the 1st publishing of Origins of Species).

149 years. Nearly due a special celebration

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[DanG 1]

Quote

It's right there; look for it. The "separation of church and state" came from a letter by Lincoln who was explaining what the First Amendment meant:

Jefferson, me thinks.

- Dan G

[billvon 2,990]

You are correct! I have fixed my erroneous attribution.

[kallend 2,026]

Quote

I A few amino acids or hydrocarbons found in some experimental primordial like stew in no way eliminates the existence of God, or His involvement in the history of the universe. .

Which God? I mean, humans have invented SO many:

Thor
Acan
Vishnu
Kucumatz
Ganesh
Odin
Freya (I'm counting goddesses too)
Zeus
Shiva
Aphrodite
Kali
Hera
Hermes
Osiris
Apollo
Ankh
Baal
Horus
Artemis
Minerva
Ra

Or one of thousands more???

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Ion01 2]

"Scientist" and peer reviewed papers would also have us beleive in Dark Matter, Dark Energy, and black holes. These are all entites that cannot be observed or tested (which makes it psuedoscience) yet the "scientific community" tell us they exist and make up 90% of our universe. Could it not be that they are wrong? That their thinking is fundimentally flawed? That they aren't conducting real science? Surely not for they are "scientists".
http://www.thunderbolts.info/thunderblogs/archives/subject.htm#blackholes
http://www.thunderbolts.info/thunderblogs/archives/subject.htm#darkmatter

Sadly the peer review system has become a method of control far beyond its original concept. It has become a way for scientists to abolish anything which might threaten thier established ideas, especially when they are wrong. Simply because something didn't pass review doesn't mean its not true and those that have passed are true. Is it so hard to see that things like dark matter, black holes, and evolution are unscientific in the fact that they are not observed nor tested? Shall we simply take other men at their word because they are scientist and they have a peer-reviewed paper?

[kallend 2,026]

Quote

"Scientist" and peer reviewed papers would also have us beleive in Dark Matter, Dark Energy, and black holes. These are all entites that cannot be observed or tested (which makes it psuedoscience) yet the "scientific community" tell us they exist and make up 90% of our universe. Could it not be that they are wrong? That their thinking is fundimentally flawed? That they aren't conducting real science? Surely not for they are "scientists".
http://www.thunderbolts.info/thunderblogs/archives/subject.htm#blackholes
http://www.thunderbolts.info/thunderblogs/archives/subject.htm#darkmatter

Sadly the peer review system has become a method of control far beyond its original concept.

Sadly, you don't know what you are writing about. And the evidence in support of the existence of dark matter and black holes is infinitely stronger than the evidence for the existence of any supernatural being who shapes our destinies (of which there is precisely NO evidence at all).

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[jclalor 12]

Quote

IIRC, didn't the court get their hands on a working draft that actually had creationism crossed out and intelligent design substituted in the margin?

Thats all they did in the new draft was cross out creationism and put ID in it's place and bingo, they now had "science"
They just never thought that the draft would be found.

[billvon 2,990]

>"Scientist" and peer reviewed papers would also have us beleive in Dark
>Matter, Dark Energy, and black holes.

Actually, we have observed black holes, so that's not applicable.

Dark matter and dark energy is a better example. We don't know yet what it is or how it interacts with other matter. All we know is that there is something massive out there; we call it dark matter. You can call it munge or God-flakes or whatever you choose.

>Sadly the peer review system has become a method of control far beyond
>its original concept. It has become a way for scientists to abolish anything
>which might threaten thier established ideas, especially when they are
>wrong.

So far they've been right 99.999% of the time - which is why the stuff that scientists and engineers design actually works.

If (god forbid) someday you get a deadly cancer, and a priest tells you "son, it's time for you to go home to the Father" - I suspect you will go to a doctor anyway. Because religious belief is great, but most people understand that the scientific process, peer review and the process of trial and error results in things like cancer treatments that actually work. Religion, not so much.

[jakee 1,489]

Quote

"Scientist" and peer reviewed papers would also have us beleive in Dark Matter, Dark Energy, and black holes. These are all entites that cannot be observed or tested

Wrong.

Quote

Could it not be that they are wrong? That their thinking is fundimentally flawed? That they aren't conducting real science? Surely not for they are "scientists".

Scientists aren't defined by their name, but by their method. If their methods are unscientific, if they're just guessing (as you seem to believe) then they will be pulled up.

Their isn't some big secret cabal of astrophysicists/ biologists/ geologists etc. etc. (delete as appropriate) that meets in a Zurich bank vault every year to decide what lie to fob off the public with this time.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[jclalor 12]

Quote

Quote

"Scientist" and peer reviewed papers would also have us beleive in Dark Matter, Dark Energy, and black holes. These are all entites that cannot be observed or tested.

If you were writing this in the middle ages you would be saying " Scientist would have us believe that the earth rotates around the sun, the earth is round, and there is no such things as witches".

• Quote

[Tink1717 2]

Quote

What makes that theory any more plausible than devine intervention?

Just the little thing about it being tested, verified and subject to critical review. That and the fact that it can be falsified.

Quote

What's wrong with presenting both sides of the debate and letting the students have at it?

Because science isn't up for a vote. ID isn't scientific, therefore it doesn't belong in science class. ID is religion, nothing more.

Religion is wrong, always has been, always will be.

Skydivers don't knock on Death's door. They ring the bell and runaway... It really pisses him off.
-The World Famous Tink. (I never heard of you either!!)
AA #2069 ASA#33 POPS#8808 Swooo 1717

[Tink1717 2]

Quote

Once again seperation of church and state is not in the constituation.

Yes it is. Been confirmed many times. The first amendment establishment clause has been defined by SCOTUS as:
"First, the statute must have a secular legislative purpose; second, its principle or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion (citation omitted); finally, the statute must not foster "an excessive government entanglement with religion." [The "Lemon Test", from Lemon v. Kurtzman, 1971].
But you guys have never really cared about those aspects of the law that invalidate your belief system.

Quote

www.discovery.org

Really, the same discovery institute that has been thoroughly and repeatedly debunked as deliberate disinformation? The same people who were so incompetent that they did not participate in the legal fight that they had been asking for for years? That Discovery Institute? Really?

Quote

www.icr.org

See above.

Quote

Ever heard of the Boltzmann Brain Equations

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Even a first semester statistics student knows that statistically unlikely events happen all the time. If statistical improbability was a limiting factor, no one would ever win the lottery.

Bottom line: Evolution is a scientific fact, ID is religion and is not valid on all levels. Period.

Skydivers don't knock on Death's door. They ring the bell and runaway... It really pisses him off.
-The World Famous Tink. (I never heard of you either!!)
AA #2069 ASA#33 POPS#8808 Swooo 1717