‘Intelligent design’ faces first big court test

[Dark Virtue]

The State giving funds to religious schools would not violate SOCAS from my point of view. I wouldn't have a problem with Buddhist schools, Islamic schools, Christian Schools, Jewish schools, and Secular Humanism schools all being funded from state funds. It seems to me to be a good way to end a lot of the hostility going on in the public schools.

And besides, SOCAS was really more about preventing the government from setting up a mandatory state-sponsored church, such as England had for so long.

The real problem I see with setting up a bunch of different religious public schools is that there's always going to be some Jedi/Zoroastrian/Taoist kid who doesn't have a school to go to. So while it might be perfectly acceptable morally, it's hardly practical.

LOL, that's it! EUREKA! I'm going Jedi!

That's a rather broad accusation, don't you think? Even the Catholic church has reformed since the Dark Ages. It just took them a *long* time.

It's a rather broad, ACCURATE accusation. Religions only change their stance when science forces them to.

 

[Dark Virtue]

Maybe. I wouldn't use that term since "Free Thought" has become nearly synonomous with Secular Humanism, which has unproven tenets that must be accepted by faith, just like any religious worldview. If you buy one of their Free Inquiry magazines, there's a sort of creed or statement of principles somewhere on the first few pages, and not all the principles are rational. In fact, SH has shifted their focus in the past few years from battling the Christian worldview, to battling the Skeptic one. Their faith in science and blind assertion of atheism have turned many agnostics and skeptics away from their organization.

Equating Freethough with Secular Humanism would be a mistake, since they are NOT synonymous.

It's also incorrect to state that agnosticism is similar to deism. Deists actually believe in a deity, or some great being or force. Agnostics do not, stating that it is impossible to know if gods exist.

Why do you believe that either outlook is THE position from which to teach science? I suggested Freethought, because it derives its beliefs free of dogma and religious authority of any kind. How is that not THE best platform to teach science from?

 

[MeridianFlight]

Haeckel's Embryos still show up in school textbooks as they originally appeared, and sometimes without disclaimers!

Science isn't wrong. Evolutionary ideology is, and the two are mutually exclusive. Oh, and Haeckel's Embryos is just one example of the many questionable practices employed by evolutionists.

 

[Eon]

Take the Sequoia out of your own eye, first please.

If you believe in Intelligent Design - you're following a MORE flawed concept.

If you believe in Creationism then you're following a concept requiring mental gymnastics sufficient to accept Evolution, Hyperspace and HG Wells' Time Machine as scientifically proven.

 

[Dark Virtue]

Haeckel's Embryos still show up in school textbooks as they originally appeared, and sometimes without disclaimers!

Science isn't wrong. Evolutionary ideology is, and the two are mutually exclusive. Oh, and Haeckel's Embryos is just one example of the many questionable practices employed by evolutionists.

A Christian pointing fingers at questionable practices?

I agree with Eon, I suggest giving Matthew 7:3 another read.

 

[Didasko]

Take the Sequoia out of your own eye, first please.

If you believe in Intelligent Design - you're following a MORE flawed concept.

If you believe in Creationism then you're following a concept requiring mental gymnastics sufficient to accept Evolution, Hyperspace and HG Wells' Time Machine as scientifically proven.

LOL...not very objective (hey I used one of your words) if you take into consideration that there is absolutely zero, nada, zilch scientific evidence for macro evolution.

Intelligent design and Creationism are not scientifically provable I agree. But no scientific evidence exists for macro evolution either. It is faith based!

I have no problem with your arguments that ID and Creationism are not provable scientifically, but Eon to claim that macro evolution is...your really reaching.

 

[Didasko]

A Christian pointing fingers at questionable practices?

I agree with Eon, I suggest giving Matthew 7:3 another read.

So let me see if I got this right. IceBladePod should not point out things that evolutionists do that are questionable, because christians in the past have done things that are questionable?

Wow thats a very convincing argument...

I guess us Christians are second class citizens now IceBladePod

We don't have the right to question anything anymore

 

[Master~Plan]

Take the Sequoia out of your own eye, first please.

If you believe in Intelligent Design - you're following a MORE flawed concept.

If you believe in Creationism then you're following a concept requiring mental gymnastics sufficient to accept Evolution, Hyperspace and HG Wells' Time Machine as scientifically proven.

what would you tell someone who grew up listening to evolution taught in school. Someone who had to study creationism on thier own free time, and after studying both, decide creationism made more sense?

 

[Genesis1315]

Calm it down please. Remember - CIVIL debate

 

[Didasko]

Calm it down please. Remember - CIVIL debate

I am sorry if my posts offended anyone. I grew up debating my brothers and we were quite ruthless with each other at times.

Guess I didn't notice when I crossed the uncivil line.

I'll try to do better in the future Gen

 

[MeridianFlight]

So let me see if I got this right. IceBladePod should not point out things that evolutionists do that are questionable, because christians in the past have done things that are questionable?

Wow thats a very convincing argument...

I guess us Christians are second class citizens now IceBladePod

We don't have the right to question anything anymore

So we've entered the secular Dark Ages? Nuts.

 

[Eon]

Where did I say that Macro Evolution has been proven? I simply said that it was the best guess using available data - but at least it USES available data.

And Masterplan, I can't answer that question truthfully and honestly without violating the Terms of Service. That doesn't mean the use of profanity or obscenity - it simply means that there's no nice way to communicate the conclusion I would draw under those circumstances.

In the abstract I could tell you, but I'm afraid that your question wasn't very hypothetical, was it?

 

[Dark Virtue]

what would you tell someone who grew up listening to evolution taught in school. Someone who had to study creationism on thier own free time, and after studying both, decide creationism made more sense?

I'd like to know WHY and HOW that person came to that conlusion.

 

[Dark Virtue]

So we've entered the secular Dark Ages? Nuts.

How quickly Christians want to be martyrs.

We keep telling you this over and over again, but you simply ignore what we're saying.

LISTEN UP! WE DON'T ALL BELIEVE THAT MACRO EVOLUTION (DARWINISM) IS THE BE ALL/END ALL OF THEORIES.

Yes, THEORY. It's a THEORY. But guess what, it's a SCIENTIFIC theory. It's SCIENCE. ID and Creationism are NOT. They are philosophies. THAT is why they need to stay out of the science classroom.

Note that no one here has said that Creationism or ID should NOT be taught. We are saying that they should not be taught as somethign they are not: Science.

We're not saying that you shouldn't ask questions, that would actually make me a hypocrite, would it not? It's not the ASKING of the questions we have issue with, it's the QUESTIONS themselves and their hypocritical origins. Why do I think they're hypocritical? First, you falsely believe that we believe in Macro Evolution when we have repeatedly said that we do not. Second, you are attacking the scientific process when your own beliefs cannot be tested by science.

Macro evolution is NOT Faith based. That is a hugely erroneous statement. Faith has no place in science. I'm going to write this off as a colorful reply, since I believe that you are educated enough to know about scientific theories and how they honestly work. If not, I'll be more than happy to educate you.

 

[Master~Plan]

I'd like to know WHY and HOW that person came to that conlusion.

uhg, I smell an evolution vs creation debate. If your really interested in the long debate, then start a new thread, and I will take the time to explain my side. From my last post I was implying that I have studied both sides, and chose the better. Most evolutionists have only studied one viewpoint. Christians are forced to study evolution, thus having a more diverse area of study. thats all... (yes I know your an exception DV, kudos )

 

[Didasko]

LISTEN UP! WE DON'T ALL BELIEVE THAT MACRO EVOLUTION (DARWINISM) IS THE BE ALL/END ALL OF THEORIES.

Yes, THEORY. It's a THEORY. But guess what, it's a SCIENTIFIC theory. It's SCIENCE. ID and Creationism are NOT. They are philosophies. THAT is why they need to stay out of the science classroom.

Note that no one here has said that Creationism or ID should NOT be taught. We are saying that they should not be taught as somethign they are not: Science...Macro evolution is NOT Faith based. That is a hugely erroneous statement. Faith has no place in science. I'm going to write this off as a colorful reply, since I believe that you are educated enough to know about scientific theories and how they honestly work. If not, I'll be more than happy to educate you.

I didn't notice anyone saying that you believe in macro evolution as the 'be all end all' DV. Where did I miss that?

As for macro evolution being more scientific than creationism...gotta disagree with you there. After decades of searching...there is no evidence for macro. So being that there is no more scientific evidence for macro than creationism...how can it be more scientific? I remember you saying at some time in the past that believing in something that there is no evidence for takes faith.

I agree that creationism should not be taught in the science class. It should be in ancient history

There are people searching archeological digs to find evidence that what the Bible says is true. That is as scientific as searching layers and strata for evidence of macro evolution.

I have nothing against science guys. I love science and used to teach it. But trying to force the teaching of a theory with no scientific evidence supporting it into public education science curriculum from K-12 is suspect at best.

 

[Didasko]

We're not saying that you shouldn't ask questions, that would actually make me a hypocrite, would it not? It's not the ASKING of the questions we have issue with, it's the QUESTIONS themselves and their hypocritical origins. Why do I think they're hypocritical? First, you falsely believe that we believe in Macro Evolution when we have repeatedly said that we do not. Second, you are attacking the scientific process when your own beliefs cannot be tested by science.

DV to say that questioning the scientific process makes us hypocrits is a fallacy. You question our faith and tell us we shouldn't question science? How better to question scientific theories than to point out their scientific problems?

It is not hypocritical in the least for us to question the scientific process used in the theory of evolution. We freely admit that God cannot be scientifically tested so how can that be hypocritical?

 

[MeridianFlight]

How quickly Christians want to be martyrs.

We keep telling you this over and over again, but you simply ignore what we're saying.

LISTEN UP! WE DON'T ALL BELIEVE THAT MACRO EVOLUTION (DARWINISM) IS THE BE ALL/END ALL OF THEORIES.

Yes, THEORY. It's a THEORY. But guess what, it's a SCIENTIFIC theory. It's SCIENCE. ID and Creationism are NOT. They are philosophies. THAT is why they need to stay out of the science classroom.

That's the issue though, evolution is also a philosophy. You can point out that Creationists work "backwards" and look for evidence that fits their beliefs, but evolutionists are just as guilty of this.

 

[Dark Virtue]

uhg, I smell an evolution vs creation debate. If your really interested in the long debate, then start a new thread, and I will take the time to explain my side. From my last post I was implying that I have studied both sides, and chose the better. Most evolutionists have only studied one viewpoint. Christians are forced to study evolution, thus having a more diverse area of study. thats all... (yes I know your an exception DV, kudos )

Actually I don't believe I am an exception.

Many, Many atheists are ex-Christians.

 

[Dark Virtue]

That's the issue though, evolution is also a philosophy. You can point out that Creationists work "backwards" and look for evidence that fits their beliefs, but evolutionists are just as guilty of this.

Why don't you believe that evolution is a science?

Is it not testable and verifiable?

What would you think of me if I said, "God doesn't exist" and then walked out? Exactly how did I come to that view and how would I support it? Those who know me here know exactly why I don't say things like that, because you CAN'T support it.

Likewise, I will not accept your statement that "evolution is a philosophy" and let you walk away.

Evolution is SCIENCE. Since you have factually stated the opposite, I would like you to support that viewpoint with evidence.

Thank you.