New Evolution spat in U.S. schools goes to court

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fkdup74

I just don't get it :huh:

---

Me neither, do you talk the way you write? No wonder you picked that name.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fkdup74

anyway.......on topic..........

the ACLU can go straight to hell as far as I'm concerned
I really wonder if they'd defend a Christian in court if they tried to remove the teachings of evolution because they found it offensive?
I seriously doubt it, because they don't give a shit about civil liberties
they're anti-Christians with too much time and money, period.

am I saying that ID belongs in school? no
am I saying it should be thrown out? no
look at other ways to institute it maybe
braniac made a good point, throw it in with philosophy or somethin, make it an elective, etc

but no, according to the ACLU it has to go
even if it was somehow proven that it has valid educational value,
if it has to do with Christianity in any respect it doesn't belong

and the fucking courts keep letting them get away with this shit
I just don't get it :huh:

---

The problem is that the folks pushing for ID in classroom are

1. Pushing for their own brand of ID, the Christian brand.

2. Pushing for it to be in science class.

In those cases it should be thrown out.

If they were smart they'd push for it in philosophy class or something similar.

ID in itself is independent of religion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

ID in itself is independent of religion.

---

How do you figure that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dictionary.com

re·li·gion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (r-ljn)
n.

Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wikipedia.com

Intelligent Design (or ID) is the controversial assertion that certain features of the universe and of living things exhibit the characteristics of a product resulting from an intelligent cause or agent, not an unguided process such as natural selection. Though publicly most ID advocates state that their focus is on detecting evidence of design in nature, without regard to who or what the designer might be, in statements to their constituents and supporters nearly all state explicitly that they believe the designer to be the Christian God.

---

How many athiests subscribe to the theory of intelligent design?

From the Urban Dictionary

Quote:

---

The Intelligent Design Theory suggests that intelligent causes are necessary to explain the complex, information-rich structures of biology, and that these causes are empirically detectable.

Contrary to popular belief, this theory is based on modern science, not religious beliefs.

The latest theory to explain the complexity of the biological world is intellegent design.

Source: George, Feb 26, 2005

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JPaul

From the Urban Dictionary

Quote:

---

The Intelligent Design Theory suggests that intelligent causes are necessary to explain the complex, information-rich structures of biology, and that these causes are empirically detectable.

Contrary to popular belief, this theory is based on modern science, not religious beliefs.

The latest theory to explain the complexity of the biological world is intellegent design.

Source: George, Feb 26, 2005

---

---

That's fine, until you take the obvious viewpoint that Intelligent Design must have an Intelligent Designer.

Choose what definition you like, it must be the product of faith based ideology, ie religion.

I keep asking this, why does the inteligent designer of our Universe have to be God.

God (certainly from a Christian viewpoint) is omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent. All knowing, all powerful and all present. The being who created our Universe could just as easily have come from another one, set our's in motion and have subsequently died.

Given that ID, as I understand it, concerns itself with how things work in our Universe, then the "non-God" designer must surely be acceptable to it. It doesn't matter where the designer came from, just what she did.

That being the case, ID is not religious. What is religious / philosophical is seeking the nature of the designer, as opposed to understanding the design itself.

there's still no science to support it

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JPaul

What is religious / philosophical is seeking the nature of the designer

---

apparently they've already found the nature of the designer, since it's in the name of the hypothesis: "intelligent."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 3RA1N1AC

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JPaul

What is religious / philosophical is seeking the nature of the designer

---

apparently they've already found the nature of the designer, since it's in the name of the hypothesis: "intelligent."

---

Indeed, however being intelligent does not make her God.

i still wonder how one determines whether or not a naturally occuring structure qualifies as a design. what test could possibly be used, to distinguish such a thing?

if one must first assume that there's a distant intelligence without testing the existence of the distant intelligence, assume that there's a design without testing the existence of the design, and then assume that there's a connection between the distant intelligence and the design without testing the connection... that's quite a lot of assumption from which to begin one's scientific study of this design-created-by-a-distant-intelligence.

i reckon it falls into the domain of philosophy because it's (seemingly) all deduction and no test.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by clocker

How do you figure that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dictionary.com

re·li·gion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (r-ljn)
n.

Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wikipedia.com

Intelligent Design (or ID) is the controversial assertion that certain features of the universe and of living things exhibit the characteristics of a product resulting from an intelligent cause or agent, not an unguided process such as natural selection. Though publicly most ID advocates state that their focus is on detecting evidence of design in nature, without regard to who or what the designer might be, in statements to their constituents and supporters nearly all state explicitly that they believe the designer to be the Christian God.

---

How many athiests subscribe to the theory of intelligent design?

---

Sorry clocker. I meant particular religion.

i don't understand what you're getting at JP

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 3RA1N1AC

i still wonder how one determines whether or not a naturally occuring structure qualifies as a design. what test could possibly be used, to distinguish such a thing?

if one must first assume that there's a distant intelligence without testing the existence of the distant intelligence, assume that there's a design without testing the existence of the design, and then assume that there's a connection between the distant intelligence and the design without testing the connection... that's quite a lot of assumption from which to begin one's scientific study of this design-created-by-a-distant-intelligence.

i reckon it falls into the domain of philosophy because it's (seemingly) all deduction and no test.

---

I think the basic laws of physics and chemistry were designed and set in motion. Everything else fell in place.

right, and there's nothing wrong with making such a deduction, it's just that we can't really test it.

my next bit of navel-gazing. going by jpaul's implication that it's not philosophical (and therefore scientifically relevant?) if it's completely about the design and completely not-about the designer: what's the significance, then? suppose one person studies the physical nature of a thing under the assumption that it is the result of design, yet has no intention of bringing the nature of the designer into the equation; and another studies the same thing under no assumption of design. why should there be any essential difference at all between the conclusions that these two people reach? if there were no difference, wouldn't it suggest that the assumption of design is unnecessary to the study? (just as much as an assumption that there is no design would also be unnecessary)

what's intelligent design without an intelligent designer?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 3RA1N1AC

right, and there's nothing wrong with making such a deduction, it's just that we can't really test it.

my next bit of navel-gazing. going by jpaul's implication that it's not philosophical (and therefore scientifically relevant?) if it's completely about the design and completely not-about the designer: what's the significance, then? suppose one person studies the physical nature of a thing under the assumption that it is the result of design, yet has no intention of bringing the nature of the designer into the equation; and another studies the same thing under no assumption of design. why should there be any essential difference at all between the conclusions that these two people reach? if there were no difference, wouldn't it suggest that the assumption of design is unnecessary to the study? (just as much as an assumption that there is no design would also be unnecessary)

---

That's why it's idiotic to have it in science class. I believe in ID but don't think it's cool to put it in schools any way I see fit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 3RA1N1AC

i still wonder how one determines whether or not a naturally occuring structure qualifies as a design. what test could possibly be used, to distinguish such a thing?

---

Must we discount human deduction?

Have you ever looked at a snowflake?

Randomly occurring, natural, mathematically provable perfection.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 3RA1N1AC

i still wonder how one determines whether or not a naturally occuring structure qualifies as a design. what test could possibly be used, to distinguish such a thing?

---

Must we discount human deduction?

Have you ever looked at a snowflake?

Randomly occurring, natural, mathematically provable perfection.

---

miracle?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GepperRankins

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Must we discount human deduction?

Have you ever looked at a snowflake?

Randomly occurring, natural, mathematically provable perfection.

---

miracle?

---

And the first Encarta (safely secular source, no?) definition of miracle is:

1. act of God: an event that appears to be contrary to the laws of nature and is regarded as an act of God
Microsoft® Encarta® Reference Library 2005. © 1993-2004 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

so a snowflake is a miracle?

I thought that's what you said; I saw the definition of "miracle" had bearing here.

For the record, (insofar as anyone actully cares) I would say the crystaline structure of a snowflake is indeed a miracle, as well as a prime example of intelligent design.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JPaul

I keep asking this, why does the inteligent designer of our Universe have to be God.

---

Because, by definition, any being capable of such a feat would have to be God.

Why is it that backers of this theory are unwilling to admit the obvious- they want religion taught in school AND they want it elevated to the level of science.
Furthermore, not just any religion will do...it is Christianity they are advancing.
Highly unlikely that any evidence whatsoever that Shiva (for example) constructed the Universe will ever be presented in Indiana schools,eh?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by clocker

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JPaul

I keep asking this, why does the inteligent designer of our Universe have to be God.

---

Because, by definition, any being capable of such a feat would have to be God.

---

No they wouldn't.

one can only assume that any "judeo-Christian" that believes I.D. and the "designer" is not god is renouncing their faith. :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

one can only assume that any "judeo-Christian" that believes I.D. and the "designer" is not god is renouncing their faith. :rolleyes:

---

Are you 12 years old, that would certainly explain your inability to take part in adult conversation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JPaul

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by clocker

Because, by definition, any being capable of such a feat would have to be God.

---

No they wouldn't.

---

Fine then.
If your God did not create all this then why is He/She/It worthy of your faith?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JPaul

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

one can only assume that any "judeo-Christian" that believes I.D. and the "designer" is not god is renouncing their faith. :rolleyes:

---

Are you 12 years old, that would certainly explain your inability to take part in adult conversation.

---

So you don't have an argument in response then.. I am not surprised. :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by clocker

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JPaul

No they wouldn't.

---

Fine then.
If your God did not create all this then why is He/She/It worthy of your faith?

---

Why would the being who designed this Universe have to be God, any more than you designing and making a clock would make you God.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JPaul

Are you 12 years old, that would certainly explain your inability to take part in adult conversation.

---

So you don't have an argument in response then.. I am not surprised. :rolleyes:

---

I have put it forward oft time, you just don't understand it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JPaul

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

So you don't have an argument in response then.. I am not surprised. :rolleyes:

---

I have put it forward oft time, you just don't understand it.

---

show me

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JPaul

I have put it forward oft time, you just don't understand it.

---

show me

---

Don't be ridiculous.



:blushing: Sorry, you don't have an option. My bad.

You either believe what the faith teaches that God made the earth or you don't. It's that simple.

JP trying to dig out of a hole... haven't seen this in a while :lol:


dictionary.com says....

Quote:

---

1. God
1. A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions.
2. The force, effect, or a manifestation or aspect of this being.
2. A being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and worshiped by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature or reality.
3. An image of a supernatural being; an idol.
4. One that is worshiped, idealized, or followed: Money was their god.
5. A very handsome man.
6. A powerful ruler or despot.

---

so if it wasn't the judeo-christian God it was a god.

anyway all this is irrelevent. even if we ignore the fact that 'intelligent design' stems from christian literature, there is no science to support it so it should not be in science classrooms

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

You either believe what the faith teaches that God made the earth or you don't. It's that simple.

---

No it isn't, but that's the sort of childish simplicity that I would have expected from you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JPaul

Why would the being who designed this Universe have to be God

---

So you are no longer a religious man, JP?

I suspect you are arguing simply for sport here.

Quote:

---

From the Nicene Creed...
We believe (I believe) in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.

---

Doesn't seem to leave a lot of room for intelligent design sans God, does it?

Yet again you are unable to make a valid counter so you rely on trying to make insults

Who here thinks that the Universe we live in is the whole of creation.

I don't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by clocker

So you are no longer a religious man, JP?

I suspect you are arguing simply for sport here.

Quote:

---

From the Nicene Creed...
We believe (I believe) in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.

---

Doesn't seem to leave a lot of room for intelligent design sans God, does it?

---

I trust that this is a wind-up and that you are not so narrow of thinking.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JPaul

Who here thinks that the Universe we live in is the whole of creation.

I don't.

---

I do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by clocker

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JPaul

Who here thinks that the Universe we live in is the whole of creation.

I don't.

---

I do.

---

The physics I believe suggests that the Universe we live in is but one of many. Part of a multiverse if you will.

This explains how you cannot accept my argument that the (alleged) designer of this Universe would not also have to be God.