Intelligent design, my version.

[Midnight Rain]

I support the idea of intelligent design being taught in Schools,as per this type;

Some people believe God created the Earth some 5 billion years ago, God was in no hurry so he spent 3 billion years before creating primitive bacterial life in a soup like mix of DNA strands, 1 1/2 billion years later he created the dinosaurs, and skipping ahead only 100,000 years ago he created the first Humans, one woman Eve and probably more than one man as her mate, skipping ahead to 15,000 years ago God created a great furnace to melt the Ice that covered most of the world and there was a great flood, 98% of the World's people lived below our present sea level and when most of the glaciers melted there was a cataclysm of Global warming that raised the sea level 400!!! feet and 99% of the world's people drowned, In the middle east everyone was killed except for a visionary nautical engineer that built a great ship his name was Noah and you may or may not believe the rest of the story but people of faith believe some of it is recorded in the bible.

I call it intelligent design, and its based on the idea that evolution is the way God creates, by encouraging mutations to occur over million of millions of years etc In a regular science course at high school all it would take is one one hour class to discuss it as a possible alternative to Godless evolution as theorized by Charles Darwin and most modern scientists.

Why should we ever teach any religious backing to evolution?

 

[Lyndon]

Because its one possible explanation of why the world evolved the way it did, are we only going to express one side's opinions to our students, how are they supposed to make up their own mind if they only hear one side of the story??

 

[Midnight Rain]

Because its one possible explanation of why the world evolved the way it did, are we only going to express one side's opinions to our students, how are they supposed to make up their own mind if they only hear one side of the story??

No it isn't. It could have easily happened just the way the scientific evidence points. There is not actual evidence for theistic involvement. If there is no evidence then it isn't science and shouldn't be taught as science. If there are religious parents or Churches that want to teach theistic evolution they are welcome to. Just not in the science classroom.

 

[Lyndon]

If God exists, and has something to do with the evolutionary/creationist process, well then God is definitely part of science and deserves as least mention as one possible theory.

 

[Midnight Rain]

If God exists, and has something to do with the evolutionary/creationist process, well then God is definitely part of science and deserves as least mention as one possible theory.

If there is evidence then there will be a scientific theory. There is not evidence therefore there is not a scientific theory. Simple as that.

 

[gnostic]

If God exists, and has something to do with the evolutionary/creationist process, well then God is definitely part of science and deserves as least mention as one possible theory.

Where is the facepalm smilie when one needed it?

Ok, I will just roll my eyes on this one...

 

[gnostic]

If God exists, and has something to do with the evolutionary/creationist process, well then God is definitely part of science and deserves as least mention as one possible theory.

What part of evidences and science that you don't understand, Lyndon?

Because its one possible explanation of why the world evolved the way it did, are we only going to express one side's opinions to our students, how are they supposed to make up their own mind if they only hear one side of the story??

Science is about knowledge that have been verified with empirical evidences and successful repeated testings.

If you want opinions, then you are in the wrong department, Lyndon.

If you want opinions, try politics, or philosophy, or therapy. And if you want superstitious belief of the divine or the supernatural, try theology, religion or occults.

Creationism and ID all fall under "pseudoscience". Look it up, Lyndon -

P-S-E-U-D-O-S-C-I-E-N-C-E
​

 

[outhouse]

how are they supposed to make up their own mind if they only hear one side of the story??

Because there is only one credible side, and that Is the the facts behind evolution.


We don't use imagination to make any credible claims.

 

[AllanV]

If there is evidence then there will be a scientific theory. There is not evidence therefore there is not a scientific theory. Simple as that.

Is there such a something called will. Some deny that word.

Many use the word will in relation to getting well after a sickness when it is necessary to have the will to live. Man is said to have a will.

 

[Midnight Rain]

Is there such a something called will. Some deny that word.

Many use the word will in relation to getting well after a sickness when it is necessary to have the will to live. Man is said to have a will.

And...? Seems you were going somewhere with this. But you just trailed off.

 

[gnostic]

Is there such a something called will. Some deny that word.

Many use the word will in relation to getting well after a sickness when it is necessary to have the will to live. Man is said to have a will.

I think you're being pedantic over the use of the word "will".

 

[AllanV]

And...? Seems you were going somewhere with this. But you just trailed off.

Can it be scientifically verified because I remember a big discussion some time ago, saying it doesn't exist.

 

[gnostic]

If God exists, and has something to do with the evolutionary/creationist process, well then God is definitely part of science and deserves as least mention as one possible theory.

Theistic evolution is an opinion of a person who believe in God and accept evolution, at the same time, BUT "theistic evolution" itself is not science.

 

[Midnight Rain]

Can it be scientifically verified because I remember a big discussion some time ago, saying it doesn't exist.

You have to first define what you mean by will. Do we have sentient agency? Do we have free will? Is it limited free will? There is a lot of discussion based on that but in all honestly it doesn't matter in the context of this debate because if we do have free will it doesn't disqualify us for purely materialistic evolution.

 

[Lyndon]

If God exists then he/she is part of science, to prove God is not part of science you have to absolutely prove that God does not exist, which you cannot do.......

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

If God exists then he/she is part of science, to prove God is not part of science you have to absolutely prove that God does not exist, which you cannot do.......

Theories of procreation do not require to mention the opinion that love is real, that a baby is born from love.

You do not accept subjectivity, faith, you require objectivity, fact.

 

[Ouroboros]

Because its one possible explanation of why the world evolved the way it did, are we only going to express one side's opinions to our students, how are they supposed to make up their own mind if they only hear one side of the story??

Should we also teach alchemy and astrology as alternatives to chemistry and astronomy? Let's keep science classes teach science, and religious classes teach religion. Evolution isn't an opinion but a well established and scientifically supported theory. Religious stories belong to religious education and not in science class.

 

[Ouroboros]

If God exists, and has something to do with the evolutionary/creationist process, well then God is definitely part of science and deserves as least mention as one possible theory.

God was mentioned in the anthropology classes I took, and it was explained why that wasn't a scientific explanation. Science is about natural explanations for natural phenomenon. If God used evolution to produce life, teaching about evolution then essentially be educating about God and how God did it, but it's up to each person to draw that conclusion themselves. Someone might conclude that mysterious invisible elves working for Santa Claus are behind evolution and the world, then so be it, but that doesn't have to be taught as a scientific theory.

 

[Ouroboros]

If God exists then he/she is part of science, to prove God is not part of science you have to absolutely prove that God does not exist, which you cannot do.......

Science deals with things you can test and show to be consistent. God isn't such an entity that you test. God is something you believe in outside of evidence. There's no need to show the number of cusps in a molar and then add "that's the way God did it" simply because that's how nature did it, and perhaps God is using that method or there isn't any God, but that's outside the scope of science class.

 

[outhouse]

If God exists then he/she is part of science, to prove God is not part of science you have to absolutely prove that God does not exist, which you cannot do.......

Sorry that is a logical fallacy.

You have to prove god exist before you can attribute anything to the concept.

Science is a study, have you seen any of the thousands of gods men have created, studying anything?