Dover Judge Rules Against Intelligent Design

[angellous_evangellous]

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?

Most of the 85% claim to be Christians because of their geographic locale. Belief in a literal creation and that it should be taught in schools belongs to a fundamentally conservative few. There are 14 different Christian interpretations of the creation myth in Genesis, and I don't know how many Jewish. To say that Christians are unified in their interpretation of the Genesis myth is profoundly ignorant.

BTW, this argument is coming from a Christian in the US.

 

[Rex_v2.0]

Who is talking about Genesis? I was being general comparing to my elephant analogy.

This coming from an athiest in the US.

 

[Quiddity]

The only reason people are pushing for ID (creationism) to be taught is in an attempt to debunk or trump the theory of evolution.

And what's wrong with that?

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.

There you go with "pushing" again. Everybody pushes/fights for what they believe or afraid of Maize.

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.

English will do. Story reading time. But then they would go give there science teacher a hard time. Which is ok as long as they are being charitable and being detail natzis..

Are you afraid of this Maize?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Who is talking about Genesis? I was being general comparing to my elephant analogy.

This coming from an athiest in the US.

Ah, I see. I can't help but be a bit surprised that you have confused scientific theory with ID in the posts above. I've never seen an atheist do that before.

My response still applies. It doesn't matter what the people say when they "see" the elephant via ID and Creationism. Theology and myths can't tell us that what they are "seeing" is an elephant. Only science can tell us that it is an elephant in the science classroom. Myths and theology can tell us about what people worship, but it cannot be taught scientifically.

EDIT: Your analogy is very weak because creationism and ID don't examine anything like science does, therefore ID and Creationism cannot say scientifically that their conclusions are correct because neither are the product of scientific inquiry. Metaphorically speaking, theology cannot call an apple what science has concluded is an orange.

 

[jonny]

[Shameless plug]While everyone is really excited about this evolution vs. creation thing, you should go read my thread I started on it a while back. I swear the article is somewhat entertaining, even if it is a little long. There is a ton of stuff that can be discussed that I've never seen on these boards, unlike this discussion which occurs approx. once a day

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/showthread.php?t=23350

[/shameless plug]

 

[A. Leaf]

What a shame, considering how old the universe is, and how we have progessed in such a short time since the dinosaurs. To think that we are the only Intelligent lifeform that exists in the Universe i must admit is a little sad. Get rid of wars, corruption, murders etc, You just dont know who might pop in and say hello. Pure Intelligence is that of God and that of You

 

[Green Gaia]

And what's wrong with that?

Because ID (creationism) is NOT science, and therefore has no place in a science class. Debunk it all you want at your church though where you all can agree with yourselves.

There you go with "pushing" again. Everybody pushes/fights for what they believe or afraid of Maize.

I don't want fundamentalist Christian ideas pushed on my kids at a public school. If I'd sent them to a private Christian school, then I'd be asking for it. I want them taught science in science class, not someone else's religious beliefs. We teach them what others believe in the course of their religious education at church, without the proselytizing.

English will do. Story reading time. But then they would go give there science teacher a hard time. Which is ok as long as they are being charitable and being detail natzis..

What? And I'm sure only the Genesis story of creation will be read right?

Are you afraid of this Maize?

Yes, I am afraid that a few fundies are trying to hijack my kids science education with their religious beliefs, and I don't like it.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

What a shame, considering how old the universe is, and how we have progessed in such a short time since the dinosaurs. To think that we are the only Intelligent lifeform that exists in the Universe i must admit is a little sad. Get rid of wars, corruption, murders etc, You just dont know who might pop in and say hello. Pure Intelligence is that of God and that of You

To teach something as a scientific fact that is not is worse.

If it makes you feel warm and fuzzy to think that there is more life than us, fine. Until we find it, we cannot conclude that it exists and teach it as fact.

 

[michel]

Ah, I see.

My response still applies. It doesn't matter what the people say when they "see" the elephant via ID and Creationism. Theology and myths can't tell us that what they are "seeing" is an elephant. Only science can tell us that it is an elephant in the science classroom. Myths and theology can tell us about what people worship, but it cannot be taught scientifically.

EDIT: Your analogy is very weak because creationism and ID don't examine anything like science does, therefore ID and Creationism cannot say scientifically that their conclusions are correct because neither are the product of scientific inquiry. Metaphorically speaking, theology cannot call an apple what science has concluded is an orange.

I still don't quite understand your elephant. What is the difference between science calling an entity which they have obseved an 'Elephant' and a Proponent of ID calling an entity which they believe to have sensed an elephant ?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I still don't quite understand your elephant. What is the difference between science calling an entity which they have obseved an 'Elephant' and a Proponent of ID calling an entity which they believe to have sensed an elephant ?

Because science has an objective apparatus called the scientific method. It classifies objects based upon duplicated results.

If you sense an elephant, it could be indigestion. It could be a lion, a bear, or slow antacid. Only science can tell you which is which.

EDIT: It wasn't my analogy to begin with LOL.

Science is the appropriate means by which we evaluate and understand humanity's relationship to nature. It is inappropriate to use myths to evaluate the conclusions of science and then pretend like the myth should be accepted as scientific conclusions. The simple fact of the matter is that ID and creationism don't follow the scientific method and therefore do not share the status of what scientists call "theory" despite the confusing rhetoric. A myth is not a scientific theory because it does not follow the scientific method.

Another confusing aspect is the analogy itself. Our friend said what if someone sees a pink or blue elephant. However, seeing is a scientific excersize. No one has seen God or the Intelligent Designer, if so, we could enter such information as scientific evidence and use such evidence to come to a conclusion. That being the case, myths of a Creator and Designer have no place whatsoever in scientific discussion, no matter where it takes place.

 

[Quiddity]

Because ID (creationism) is NOT science, and therefore has no place in a science class. Debunk it all you want at your church though where you all can agree with yourselves.

I don't want fundamentalist Christian ideas pushed on my kids at a public school. If I'd sent them to a private Christian school, then I'd be asking for it. I want them taught science in science class, not someone else's religious beliefs. We teach them what others believe in the course of their religious education at church, without the proselytizing.

What? And I'm sure only the Genesis story of creation will be read right?

Yes, I am afraid that a few fundies are trying to hijack my kids science education with their religious beliefs, and I don't like it.

Maize, when I think "ID" I don't attach Christian Fundie or the Bible to that. Perhaps that's why you are so turned off. Isn't there supporters of ID that are not Christian Fundies?

~Victor

 

[Green Gaia]

Maize, when I think "ID" I don't attach Christian Fundie or the Bible to that. Perhaps that's why you are so turned off. Isn't there supporters of ID that are not Christian Fundies?

~Victor

Probably. But, as they like remind everyone, Christianity is the majority religion in the USA, so the Christian ones pushing for their religious ideas to be taught to all kids in public schools are the most loudest and most radical.

 

[Quiddity]

Probably. But, as they like remind everyone, Christianity is the majority religion in the USA, so the Christian ones pushing for their religious ideas to be taught to all kids in public schools are the most loudest and most radical.

You got most of the media on your side Maize, don't worry... I wasn't looking at ID as a form of teaching what we believe. But rather, challenging what is already being taught. I don't think this is done in classes and ID could be a start of explaining gaps and details.

~Victor

 

[Green Gaia]

I don't think this is done in classes and ID could be a start of explaining gaps and details.
~Victor

How? It's not science. If you want to challenge it in a scientific setting, then come up with another scientific explanation. If you want to challenge it in a religious setting then ID is viable. But not in a science classroom.

 

[Quiddity]

How? It's not science. If you want to challenge it in a scientific setting, then come up with another scientific explanation. If you want to challenge it in a religious setting then ID is viable. But not in a science classroom.

I already said I agree "not in a science classroom". What I am saying is that if they can take it as an elective in college, then it can spark them to ask more questions, rather then taking silly explanations like "the ape erected up right due to the immense heat". There is no spark in students but all they are doing is taking the professors every word. See what I mean?

But I guess I can see the class being named something other then ID. This already has negative association to many.

~Victor

 

[Green Gaia]

I already said I agree "not in a science classroom". What I am saying is that if they can take it as an elective in college, then it can spark them to ask more questions, rather then taking silly explanations like "the ape erected up right due to the immense heat". There is no spark in students but all they are doing is taking the professors every word. See what I mean?

But I guess I can see the class being named something other then ID. This already has negative association to many.

~Victor

If college kids elect to take a class like that, I say go for it. But I still do not like the idea of it being taught in public elementary, middle and high school science classes.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I already said I agree "not in a science classroom". What I am saying is that if they can take it as an elective in college, then it can spark them to ask more questions, rather then taking silly explanations like "the ape erected up right due to the immense heat". There is no spark in students but all they are doing is taking the professors every word. See what I mean?

But I guess I can see the class being named something other then ID. This already has negative association to many.

~Victor

We know from scientific observation that apes exist and heat exists, and therefore such elements can be considered when one is trying to provide explanations for occurances in nature. However, no one can prove that God or an Intelligent Designer exists, so neither belong in scientific discussion. It would be a far greater leap in scientific discussion to add God or an Intelligent Designer to the conversation because science cannot even know if either exist.

 

[YmirGF]

... Religion can be taught in schools as factual knowledge, but not as scientific truth or fact.

That statement is categorically incorrect.
Fact? Whose facts? Your facts? Or my Facts?

Keep the Children's Tales out of the classroom, period.

I applaud the folks of Dover.

No one with the intelligence of a three day old cucumber is fooled by Not-So-Intelligent Design. The concepts outlined in Intelligent Design are without scientific merit and so falls into the realm of opinion or heresay. The validity of a theory lies in its proofs. Intelligent Designers, don't tell me it is all true. Proove it is all true. Then I will be silent.

 

[Sunstone]

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/1221/p01s01-ussc.html

In the end, one of the most prominent intellectual defenders of intelligent design, Lehigh University biochemist Michael Behe, conceded that a definition of "science" that included it might also include astrology.

This is one of the greatest stumbling blocks of ID. It allows for any kind of supernatural explanation to be considered valid science. Astrology, pixies, the Invisiable Pink Unicorn, etc. In what sense can such things be considered science?

 

[YmirGF]

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

Physical education springs to mind.