Intelligent Design and the Public Schools

Please tell me you used Babelfish or something for this and aren't sadist enough to have typed it all out yourself.

Nope.

This is where "common usage" comes in.

..........

What I'm saying, here, is that a dictionary is not the end-all of a language debate. If the only support for your position is a dictionary says so, you are arguing against *common parlance*. You may be technically accurate, but wrong in practice.

What other support would I have that would support the meaning of a word? I was under the impression appealing to actual authority (dictionaries offer sources for their definitions) is the correct way to determine word meaning. I think you are the only one who has rejected dictionary.com as a legitimate reference. I may be wrong though.

I honestly would like to see public schools teaching more kids to think for themselves over what books alone tell them.

Give them a connection to Google, a few search terms for class- and homework, let them figure the rest out for themselves. Great for critical thinking skills, which are direly lacking in the majority nowadays.


What? This is a discussion about creationists versus evolutionists again? My mistake.

Oh, btw, no mention of creation or any God is needed for the theory of ID. That is the blinding factor, the notion of God immediately locks up the brain of otherwise thinking people.

Not to start this again, but you are wrong. Unless are are willing to throw out the ultimate creator, then yes, divinity is needed.

Not to start this again, but you are wrong. Unless are are willing to throw out the ultimate creator, then yes, divinity is needed.

I thought that was clear from the other threads on this issue. When discussing the beginning of life as we know it on Earth, we are not talking about life in general, only life on Earth as we know it.

It has to be universal. Theories don't work selectively. If it seems to, its not a theory.

The problem is, people who write books that tell children what to believe wouldn't like schools allowing children the right to seek out the truth of any given issue. People currently empowered with the indoctrination (and those who agree with the dogma put forth) of children will fight tooth and nail to keep things as they are.

It has to be universal. Theories don't work selectively. If it seems to, its not a theory.

The theory of evolution isn't a single, unified theory.

The theory of evolution isn't a single, unified theory.

That is the blinding factor, the notion of God immediately locks up the brain of otherwise thinking people.

What was this about? Maybe I should read the beginning of the thread.

For simplicities sake, it can be refered to as such, in this case. If ID is the answer, it's universal. If ID isnt the answer, whatever is is universal.

You debate?
Where???

Which theory of evolution is the answer? Stephen Jay Gould's Punctuated equilibrium? Darwin's Theory of Evolution? Motoo Kimura's neutral theory of molecular evolution? Or any others I didn't list?

Y'all are getting in the spirit of things now by continuing to make completely unsupported, illogical statements? 'k.

Yeah... We had lots of practice at this in the 20-some page thread last time, Ananda. At this point we're pretty much just bored with the topic, but for some reason it keeps popping up...

Here lies a clue to the problem. I believe that evolution offers the best explanation we have so far, but I've never been indoctrinated to believe that it was proven beyond a doubt. Perhaps he is too eager to deal in absolutes.

He then opens up with a series of emotional arguments that attempt to garner support, but are irrelevant to the issue.



Uh... yeah. Science describes natural phenomena.



Wrong, theories of evolution are testable through observations.



Certainly, you can postulate anything you want, even if conflicting plausible natural explansions exist.



And yet there are extremely complex systems that arise naturally. Complexity alone is not evidence of a designer. In fact, as a designer myself, I think that the more simple a design is, the better it is.



This is just silly. Any unproven theory, natural or supernatural would be equally valid. The number of unproven explanations are just as valid as ID. The problem is that since ID is supernatural, it is not science and it is not disprovable.



The "random chance" of throwing a bucket of water into the air and having it assemble into a crystal structure is so small that it is practically impossible. Yet ice crystals form on their own without the help of an outside designer. How can this be? Natural forces drive systems to complex patterns.

Just because we don't know how it happened doesn't mean it was supernatural. It could be, but it doesnt mean it is so.



This is circumstantial evidence in favor of ID, although it is not direct evidence. Note that evolutionary theory is not disproved by these discoveries.



Evolutionary theory has also sped-up the discovery of other fucntions. Is research overall faster or slower using evolution as a guide? Would it have gone faster using ID as a guide?
I would think that using evolution as a guide for research has borne more fruit, but then that's just my opinion.



This is a speculative argument, the ID/evolution debate did not exist at that time. Religion was the explanation of the day.



because its not science



Ahh, conspiracy theories.... Make what you will of them.



If wishes were horses, then beggars would ride.
"Let us suppose arguments" are fun, but what do they prove?




Because debating science versus religion is silly. If ID were a scientific theory you would find many more scientists willing to debate it. The problem is that no matter how many times you explain that ID is a religious belief, most ID advocates still seem to think that it is science. After a while there's no point trying to put up a logical argument and all you can do is laugh and pray that most people will understand the difference.



Clearly it was not by random chance. Does this mean it was supernatural or by design of an outside being? No, it just means that it didn't happen by random bouncing around. There are plenty of natural systems that do exist that are not possible based on a calculation like this. Using an arguement like this it would be impossible for the sun to exist, what are the probablitiy that enough hydrogen atoms would all be in the same location at the same time and just "happen" to start a fusion chain reaction? Pretty darn low, yet it did happen. How? Because it wasn't just random, there was a natural force (gravity) that brought them together and allowed this "impossible by chance" thing to occur.



I agree here, which is why it doesn't belong in science education. Does it belong in schools in general? Maybe, in the right context, but be careful of the can of worms it can open for other religions, all of them need to be treated equally in the public sphere.



I found the arguemnts to be based on emotion and misunderstanding of science. I remain unconvinced.

Are you having trouble controlling yourself from posting to these kind of "boring" threads?

Just wondering, because I don't post to threads I find boring.

"It's so boring I have to post to it." isn't something I say generally.