Should ID be taught in public schools?

[rocketman]

They explicity reject all of modern Geology, Cosmology, Paleontology, Archeology, Anthropology, Astronomy and Biology.

What an incredibly ignorant statement. Even worse than your earlier assertion. Someone better tell people like, say, Danny Faulkner to quit teaching astronomy and physics at a secular university, and to withdraw the papers he has had published in the scientific journals because, hey, he explicitely rejects science. Maybe you can tell him Auto. You don't seem to understand the difference between the crazy fringe and those intelligent and genuine people who have questions.

But I digress.

 

[Autodidact]

This is poor research on your part. The ID crowd don't argue for a young earth. You have them mixed up with YECers.

Young Earth Creationism is a subset of Creationism, which is a subset of ID. All YEC's subscribe to ID; not all ID proponents subscribe to YEC.

 

[Autodidact]

What an incredibly ignorant statement. Even worse than your earlier assertion. Someone better tell people like, say, Danny Faulkner to quit teaching astronomy and physics at a secular university, and to withdraw the papers he has had published in the scientific journals because, hey, he explicitely rejects science. Maybe you can tell him Auto. You don't seem to understand the difference between the crazy fringe and those intelligent and genuine people who have questions.

But I digress.

The fact that you have managed to find a single employed astronomer who is also a creationist does not mean that he does not reject every widely accepted theory of modern astronomy; it only shows that there is no prejudice against Christians or Creationists, as long as they stick to teaching what is accepted. That is, if Dr. Faulkner were to teach, in his post at the University of South Carolina, that we know that the universe is less than 10,000 years old, he would be fired as utterly incompetent.

 

[rocketman]

All YEC's subscribe to ID

You must be joking. See here, and here for example.

 

[Autodidact]

You must be joking. See here, and here for example.

Rather than me doing your work for you, why don't you make your argument, and then provide cites in support.

 

[rocketman]

The fact that you have managed to find a single employed astronomer who is also a creationist does not mean that he does not reject every widely accepted theory of modern astronomy; it only shows that there is no prejudice against Christians or Creationists, as long as they stick to teaching what is accepted.

The point is he doesn't have to reject every theory in order for him to have creationist questions. I was most impressed by this comment of his:

"Perhaps the most common idea is that God created the light in transit. I have a real problem with that one. For example, when a distant supernova explodes, there is all sorts of detailed information in the light—the speed of expansion, what isotopes are involved, even sometimes a reflected light echo from nearby gas. Yet if the light was created ‘on its way’, all this is phony information—nothing like it ever occurred. This reminds me of a fellow named Gosse who was saying over 100 years ago that God created fossils inside the earth ready-made. I think this ‘light created on its way’ idea is a first cousin of Gosse’s notion."

Link.

Like it or not their are many creationists who will not compromise science in their search for answers. They certainly DO NOT claim to have all the answers for their search. Get used to it: the old crazy fringe is slowly giving way to a more considered apporach. So I maintain that your original assertion is not a true reflection of reality.

 

[rocketman]

Rather than me doing your work for you, why don't you make your argument, and then provide cites in support.

I did.

 

[Autodidact]

The point is he doesn't have to reject every theory in order for him to have creationist questions. I was most impressed by this comment of his:

"Perhaps the most common idea is that God created the light in transit. I have a real problem with that one. For example, when a distant supernova explodes, there is all sorts of detailed information in the light—the speed of expansion, what isotopes are involved, even sometimes a reflected light echo from nearby gas. Yet if the light was created ‘on its way’, all this is phony information—nothing like it ever occurred. This reminds me of a fellow named Gosse who was saying over 100 years ago that God created fossils inside the earth ready-made. I think this ‘light created on its way’ idea is a first cousin of Gosse’s notion."

Link.

Like it or not their are many creationists who will not compromise science in their search for answers. They certainly DO NOT claim to have all the answers for their search. Get used to it: the old crazy fringe is slowly giving way to a more considered apporach. So I maintain that your original assertion is not a true reflection of reality.

It's not possible to believe that the universe is 6000 years old without compromising huge chunks of science. He's a creationist because of his peculiar brand of Christianity, not because of science but in spite of it. Why do you think every scientist who is not a particular sort of Christian believes differently? Obviously it's not the scientific evidence that leads to this conclusion, or some non-Christian scientists would see it too.

 

[Autodidact]

I did.

No, you gave me two cites to click on. It's not my job to figure out what your point is and how you think those links support that point; it's yours. Make it or not, it's up to you, but I'm not willing to do it for you.

 

[rocketman]

It's not possible to believe that the universe is 6000 years old without compromising huge chunks of science.

You wouldn't have to compromise anything. In fact, you could have your doubts while simultaneously and with intellectual honesty humbly teach mainstream science and even write several mainstream scientific papers, just like Dr. Faulkner does. To say that someone like the Dr "explicity rejects all of modern Geology, Cosmology, Paleontology, Archeology, Anthropology, Astronomy and Biology." isn't true, not even in the sense that he is looking for holes in it. It doesn't matter why he is looking for holes, what matters is that he is not compromising science. If you were talking about someone like Kent Hovind on the other hand, I would be inclined to agree with you.

 

[rocketman]

No, you gave me two cites to click on. It's not my job to figure out what your point is and how you think those links support that point; it's yours. Make it or not, it's up to you, but I'm not willing to do it for you.

*Sigh*

You said: "All YEC's subscribe to ID"

Your statement is an all-inclusive statement, which means it is false. ID is more than just a claim about IC. Creationists have plenty of reservations about ID, regardless of what they have in common. Some direct quotes (from among many) via the links I posted earlier from one of the largest creationist groups:

"However, the central problem with the ID movement is a divorce of the Creator from creation .. All other problems within the movement stem from this one."

"Proponents of ID fail to understand that a belief in long ages for the earth formed the foundation of Darwinism."

"Those within the ID movement claim their science is neutral. However, science is not neutral because it works with hypotheses based on beliefs or presuppositions. It is ironic that they refuse to see this about their own science, considering that they claim the problem with Darwinism is the presupposition that nothing supernatural exists."

"The ID movement’s belief in evolution also allows them to distance themselves from the problem of evil in the natural world."

And from this page:

"Consequently, it is not synonymous with biblical creation and is absolutely not a substitute for it"

And so on.

 

[Autodidact]

You wouldn't have to compromise anything.

I beg to differ.

In fact, you could have your doubts while simultaneously and with intellectual honesty humbly teach mainstream science and even write several mainstream scientific papers, just like Dr. Faulkner does. To say that someone like the Dr "explicity rejects all of modern Geology, Cosmology, Paleontology, Archeology, Anthropology, Astronomy and Biology." isn't true, not even in the sense that he is looking for holes in it. It doesn't matter why he is looking for holes, what matters is that he is not compromising science. If you were talking about someone like Kent Hovind on the other hand, I would be inclined to agree with you.

Hmmm, and which one is a spokesman for YEC?

I have not had the pleasure of enrolling in one of Dr. Faulkner's course, but I feel confident that he does not teach, nor publish, his "theory" that all of the stars in the sky were formed 6000 years ago. I will hazard a guess that he teaches only about what's going on now, nothing about cosmology, am I right? There is no way on earth you can do anything passable as science and come up with the conclusion that a magic being put lights in the sky as signs, all of them hanging above a flat earth, around 6000 years ago. Sorry, that's not science.

 

[Autodidact]

*Sigh*

You said: "All YEC's subscribe to ID"

Your statement is an all-inclusive statement, which means it is false. ID is more than just a claim about IC. Creationists have plenty of reservations about ID, regardless of what they have in common. Some direct quotes (from among many) via the links I posted earlier from one of the largest creationist groups:

"However, the central problem with the ID movement is a divorce of the Creator from creation .. All other problems within the movement stem from this one."

"Proponents of ID fail to understand that a belief in long ages for the earth formed the foundation of Darwinism."

"Those within the ID movement claim their science is neutral. However, science is not neutral because it works with hypotheses based on beliefs or presuppositions. It is ironic that they refuse to see this about their own science, considering that they claim the problem with Darwinism is the presupposition that nothing supernatural exists."

"The ID movement’s belief in evolution also allows them to distance themselves from the problem of evil in the natural world."

And from this page:

"Consequently, it is not synonymous with biblical creation and is absolutely not a substitute for it"

And so on.

I didn't say that it was synonymous with Biblical creation or a substitute for it. What those pages are saying, in essence, is that ID does not go far enough. That's because of what I said--not all ID proponents are YEC's. Basically, ID asserts that some intelligent designer created the universe. YEC asserts that the name of that designer is Yahweh, and He did so 6000 years ago. That's why I say that YEC is a subset of ID; it specifies what ID leaves general. Of course, in private, most ID proponents are YEC's also.

 

[rocketman]

I have not had the pleasure of enrolling in one of Dr. Faulkner's course, but I feel confident that he does not teach, nor publish, his "theory" that all of the stars in the sky were formed 6000 years ago.

Exactly, he's doing the right thing.

all of them hanging above a flat earth.

Flat earth huh?

 

[rocketman]

I didn't say that it was synonymous with Biblical creation or a substitute for it. What those pages are saying, in essence, is that ID does not go far enough. That's because of what I said--not all ID proponents are YEC's. Basically, ID asserts that some intelligent designer created the universe. YEC asserts that the name of that designer is Yahweh, and He did so 6000 years ago. That's why I say that YEC is a subset of ID; it specifies what ID leaves general. Of course, in private, most ID proponents are YEC's also.

ID allows for death before the fall, which completely cuts the legs out from under YEC. Almost all IDers are old-earthers (with a few exceptions), as shown by the YEC complaints I listed. YECers don't 'subscribe' to ID, rather they agree with the design inference, regardless of who it is coming from.

 

[Autodidact]

Exactly, he's doing the right thing.

Flat earth huh?

Y'know, like in the Bible. Somehow I doubt that's what Dr. Faulkner teaches in his University level astronomy course, don't you?

 

[Autodidact]

ID allows for death before the fall, which completely cuts the legs out from under YEC. Almost all IDers are old-earthers (with a few exceptions), as shown by the YEC complaints I listed. YECers don't 'subscribe' to ID, rather they agree with the design inference, regardless of who it is coming from.

Hey, ID allows for design by brilliant extra-terrestrials, or so they claim. My point is just that Yaweh is a subset of all possible Intelligent Designers, so YEC is a subset of ID, that's all. The design inference is what ID is all about.

 

[rocketman]

Y'know, like in the Bible. Somehow I doubt that's what Dr. Faulkner teaches in his University level astronomy course, don't you?

I'm sure you know that Faulkner does not teach a flat earth in any of his circles. 99.9% of creationists don't teach it either. I fail to see why you even introduced the term.

 

[rocketman]

Hey, ID allows for design by brilliant extra-terrestrials, or so they claim. My point is just that Yaweh is a subset of all possible Intelligent Designers, so YEC is a subset of ID, that's all. The design inference is what ID is all about.

So is Natural Theology.

I thought I might see the term 'subscribe' again, but I don't, so I'm happy.

 

[rojse]

Science is pompous. Scientists are so intelligent that they lack other skills kinda like in reverse of a blind man who has a increased sense of smell or hearing.

Take the big bang theory. This says it all. What made the big bang? It is a theory just as ID is a theory as well. As long as it is taught as a theory and not fact, anyone should be able to decide for themselves what unproven facts they wish to subscribe to or not.

The Big Bang theory and ID are certainly both theories, but the evidence to support the two are completely different. There are many different definitions to the word theory, and combining two mentions of the word theory with different meanings is beneath you.

The Big Bang is a scientific theory that has support from numerous experiments and studies. Is it perfect? Certainly not, but it does provide an explanation for the formulation of the universe that answers several important questions. Any new theories that we devise to replace the Big Bang theory must be able to explain the results of all of the experiments that the Big Bang explained previously.

On the other hand, ID is not a credible scientific theory. There are no proposed experiments that can prove or disprove ID. There are no experiments that support ID. I could go on, but I think that you get the picture.

Keeping certain theories out of text books is censorship plain and simple. It is equally as stupid for Christian schools not to teach about evolution as a theory.

Complaining that science censors ID theory is the equivalent of someone complaining that, should they send in a letter detailing the conspiracy that molemen are trying to take over the world, and the local newspaper declining to print their letter.