Dover Judge Rules Against Intelligent Design

[angellous_evangellous]

There's separation of science and religion now!!! How can you seperate God from the laws that he created?!?

There is no way to scientifically demonstrate that God even exists.

ID and Creation theory do not need scientific facts to support their claims because both myths are not based upon scientific methods.

 

[painted wolf]

Actually Rex its more like keeping Numerology out of Mathmatics...
or Astrology out of Astronomy.... faith healing out of first aid

can you imagine if your first aid cource began with... "some people believe that God makes you sick and if you just pray hard enough you will get well again. Talk to your parents if you want to know more..."
or.. "some people believe that the Stars are more than just balls of Gass in space, that they control your destiny. Read your newspaper if you want to know more."

and so on. Evolution has been demonstrated over and over, just like the Theory of Gravity and the Germ Theory of Disease.
you don't see people questioning Gravity or Germs are factual, just because they are "Theories".

wa:do

 

[Green Gaia]

Changing the subject doesn't make your arguement any better.

Science teaches more than just science, science is a "search" for the truth.

Well then let's teach Buddhism in science class too and all the other religions that search for the truth. But then when would kids have time to learn biology and anatomy and geology, etc.?

I'm not against people believing in ID (creationism), I just don't think it has any scientific basis and therefore should not be taught in science class. Leave religious matters up to parents to teach.

 

[Quiddity]

In what other class would students be learning about the theory of evolution?

I wasn't talking about the theory of evolution. I was talking about ID.

~Victor

 

[Rex_v2.0]

I was unaware there was a wide array of fossils that support the unprovable idea of intelligent design.

Proving either way is moot.

 

[jonny]

There is no way to scientifically demonstrate that God even exists.

ID and Creation theory do not need scientific facts to support their claims because both myths are not based upon scientific methods.

I never said that science can prove God, but if you believe that God was the creator then he created the laws that govern science. In that way, I cannot seperate science and religion. When I learn about science, I learn about how God created this earth.

 

[Green Gaia]

The same reason why a health teacher should say, "go talk to you parents" when a kid asks if it is ok for him to have sex.

That is not the same. That is a moral issue. Who or what created the universe is not.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Is Darwins explanation not called Darwins THEORY?

It is a conclusion based on scientific observations. Science cannot come to a conclusion that is not based on results that it can duplicate by its methods. There is no scientific observation that has produced the result "God" or any "Intelligent Designer." Therefore, no scientist can say that some unknown designer created anything because every effect in nature must have a demonstrated natural cause, not an unknown (alien) or metaphysical (divine) cause.

 

[jonny]

That is not the same. That is a moral issue. Who or what created the universe is not.

You're right, but it is an issue that some people are very passionate about and in any classroom where open thought is allowed it is bound to come up anyway.

 

[Rex_v2.0]

Actually Rex its more like keeping Numerology out of Mathmatics...
or Astrology out of Astronomy.... faith healing out of first aid

can you imagine if your first aid cource began with... "some people believe that God makes you sick and if you just pray hard enough you will get well again. Talk to your parents if you want to know more..."
or.. "some people believe that the Stars are more than just balls of Gass in space, that they control your destiny. Read your newspaper if you want to know more."

and so on. Evolution has been demonstrated over and over, just like the Theory of Gravity and the Germ Theory of Disease.
you don't see people questioning Gravity or Germs are factual, just because they are "Theories".

wa:do

If they were fact they would be called so. You could send 100 people into a room and 99 of them see a pink elephant and 1 saw a blue elephant. So who is right? the 99 or the 1?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I never said that science can prove God, but if you believe that God was the creator then he created the laws that govern science. In that way, I cannot seperate science and religion. When I learn about science, I learn about how God created this earth.

You asked How can you seperate God from the laws that he created? I answered your question.

 

[Jaymes]

Proving either way is moot.

Does that mean we can teach the theory of His Noodly Appendage creating everything? :woohoo: I mean, if we don't have to have solid proof of things we teach in science class...

 

[Green Gaia]

I wasn't talking about the theory of evolution. I was talking about ID.

~Victor

The only reason people are pushing for ID (creationism) to be taught is in an attempt to debunk or trump the theory of evolution. They couldn't stop evolution from being talked about, so now they are trying to push their religious beliefs on how the universe was created on science students.

In what other high school would students be learning about how the universe came to be? History? Phyiscal Education? English? It only really fits in science class, where science should be taught and leave the religious beliefs to parents and the clergy to teach.

 

[Rex_v2.0]

It is a conclusion based on scientific observations. Science cannot come to a conclusion that is not based on results that it can duplicate by its methods. There is no scientific observation that has produced the result "God" or any "Intelligent Designer." Therefore, no scientist can say that some unknown designer created anything because every effect in nature must have a demonstrated natural cause, not an unknown (alien) or metaphysical (divine) cause.

This brings up a good point. "god" doesn't have to be I.D. could just be a super smart alien! :jam:

 

[angellous_evangellous]

If they were fact they would be called so. You could send 100 people into a room and 99 of them see a pink elephant and 1 saw a blue elephant. So who is right? the 99 or the 1?

Is this the same type of reasoning that got ID in the classrooms in the first place?

 

[Green Gaia]

You're right, but it is an issue that some people are very passionate about and in any classroom where open thought is allowed it is bound to come up anyway.

Then it would be appropriate for the teacher to say to the student to talk about the matter with their parents or clergy. But I do not support science teachers being forced to preface every class where evolution may be mentioned with a statement on some people's religious beliefs.

 

[Rex_v2.0]

Is this the same type of reasoning that got ID in the classrooms in the first place?

Well take that argument to christians in the US. There are what 85% of the population christian in some form. Are they right because they have more in number?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

This brings up a good point. "god" doesn't have to be I.D. could just be a super smart alien! :jam:

The point is that science cannot come to conclusions that are not observable. Therefore, creationism and ID are not science, nor is their rhetoric related to scientific theory. ID and creationism need no facts whatsoever. Their "proof" in their logic is simply "It's here, so there must be an unknown designer." That type of justification places ID and Creationism in the realm of myth and wholly inappropriate for the scientific classroom.

 

[jonny]

Then it would be appropriate for the teacher to say to the student to talk about the matter with their parents or clergy. But I do not support science teachers being forced to preface every class where evolution may be mentioned with a statement on some people's religious beliefs.

I never said that they should be forced to do it. I said I wouldn't have a problem with it. I don't support teachers teaching religion in the classroom. I don't consider mentioning a religious belief the same as taking a day to discuss Adam and Eve.

 

[Darkdale]

This is good. It appears common sense has won the day.