Skip to comments.Expelled-- No Science Contained (Vanity)
Posted on 04/20/2008 8:49:48 AM PDT by Soliton
Intelligent Design is of no scientific value in determining the origins of life in the universe. A designer would have to be supernatural (i.e. not subject to the laws of physics) or natural and subject to those laws. If the designer is natural in origin, then it would have to have been designed by another designer again supernatural or natural. Ultimately come to an original designer that either evolved from a lower state of matter, or was created by a supernatural being. You will note that this is back to where we started. Science does not deal with supernatural phenomena by definition. Scientifically, the only answer is evolution. ID, however, is really about the cosmology of the Book of Genesis anyway, but if that is admitted, it cant be taught in school. And theres the rub.
The term Intelligent Design was adopted by the Discovery Institute, the originator of the ID movement, and a non-profit company that was incorporated specifically to get the story of Genesis taught in public schools (as specifically stated in the incorporation documents). To that end a Creationist textbook was published called Of Pandas and People.
In 1987, The Supreme Court of the United States ruled that teaching creationism in public schools violated the separation of church and state in Edwards vs. Aquilard.
In a similar later case, Kitzmiller vs. The Dover Area School District involving the schools acquisition of Of Pandas and People, it was proven in court that the publishers and the people who financed the purchase lied in depositions when they stated that Intelligent Design wasnt just another term for Creationism. They did this by showing that dozens of passages in the pre-1987 Edwards vs. Aquilard copies of the book used Creation, while later versions substituted Intelligent Design in its place.
The entire Intelligent Design movement is a dishonest, legalistic Trojan horse specifically intended to teach creationism in public school even though it is against the law.
Complete transcripts of Kitzmiller vs. Dover can be found here:
ID isn’t a theory. It is religion. I cited the SCOTUS case. It shouldn’rt taught in school only because it is illegal to do so.
IDers should promote the IDA (Intelligent Design Amendment. Conservatives and Christians normally obey the law.
And you believe evolution ISN’T a religion?
So don’t go see it. That’s your choice
It isn’t just happening in science, it’s happening in language and history as well. “Liberal” education czars are more and more ensuring that only one interpretation of events may be discussed — no more of that pesky questioning and debate stuff. It’s all part of ensuring that we all think “correctly.”
And another big reason why America just keeps getting dumber and dumber.
The real question is, why dose ID scare you terribly?
Christians are under no obligation to follow immoral or unethical law.
I find it ironic those who disagree with ID will cite law to boost their incorrect opinion wrt whether it can and should be taught in schools, then turn around and tell Christians they should follow whatever is unethical.
Since you ignored the previous post, evolution is a form of religion. It’s just that people are not allowed to disagree with it, because of its human origin.
People are waking up to this reality, which has the other side shaking in their boots. But you already know this.
I agree with your entire post. And here’s a bump to it!
Then the Big Bang theory has no scientific value either because once you follow it back to the singularity all known laws of physics fall apart and we are dealing with the supernatural. Should we quit teaching that also?
‘morning, Soliton. :)
I'm sure you'd have a problem with a required course regarding why Christians have an inferior mindset and should be either enslaved or murdered.
At some point, you draw the line.
Perhaps you make it an elective course. Or perhaps you simply say, we're not going to teach something that is simply incorrect.
But you do have to draw that line somewhere.
While I am not in the ID side of the argument I see things in physiology, microbiology and the absolute math that governs the universe that does make me question the supposed randomness that governs life.
BTW I would argue that intelligent design is a concept as old as natural history, dating back to Plato and Paley, the latter having coined the term design on numerous occasions.
No - evolution is science.
In what way is evolution a religion?
May the Intelligent Designer pass You by in Eternity, at least no logic was wasted on your being.
And the ID side starts with the personal attacks.
The ID side can not do science nor can they do debate. Can they do anything other than produce movies and books for profit?
I would like my children to be exposed to the underlying tenets of Christianity in school. I would like them to be taught the moral lessons that are readily available in The Holy Bible in school. The government penalizes me for this by forcing me to pay for other people’s children to go to government school while paying a second time for my own children to go to school.
This is the issue that it all boils down to. I’m forced at gunpoint to pay for things that are, to me, obviously wrong.
I like the theory at the above link!
Thanks for a thoughtful reply. I have become somewhat of an expert on this subject in the last few days and it was a very painful process.
If you read my post and actually review the transcript of Kitzmiller, you will see the ID of the ancients as a very different critter than the current ID Movement. I have no problem with ancient cosmologies involving titans, gods, or great serpents creating the universe, or gos creating man. These are religious concepts however, not science. My problem is the dishonest attempt to disguise creationism as science by hiding behind ID and calling it science. At the same time, they take a heavilly supported and accepted theory like evolution and claim it as religion. I am defending scientific method, not just evolution. The barbarians are at the gates.
Words have meaning, as El Rushbo often says, and yes I can prove that evolution is not a religion based on definitions.
#1 My tax dollars are being used to push far right religious dogma down the throats of students, and even the so-called religious right knows it is nothing more than an attempt to wrap 5000 year old religious campfire stories into pseudoscience, so they try to hide Creationism under a new name “Intelligent Design.”
If you have to be dishonest about it from Day One, give it up.
#2. People who have trouble spelling four-letter words, (no, not the dirty ones) are its strongest supporters.
You understand that this has gone all the way to the Supreme Court? Lawyers, not scientists, are to blame. Trying to snaek creationism in the back door is dishonest. Change the law.
Because of the damage it does to real science
Did you read my post at all? If you want to refute any part, please do. that would be scientific.
It scares me because I rather like our science driven high tech economy that enables us to have the most powerful military in the history of the world.
Simply saying that %deity% did it as ID does puts that all in danger.
That is unsupported and only a claim by evos. What if a Hindu brought forward the idea of I.D.? Or an agnostic?
I thought we bumped heads last night on the Catholic position but was mistaken. Evolution is a mechanism and what is the attempt by evos is to extend that back to the origins of life.
Science isn't advanced enough to exclude I.D. It is advanced to examine the potential evidence of it. The point we diverged on was science is only as good as the person paying for it. Science isn't necessarily honest. See the whole global warming agenda (which you wouldn't comment on last night) where data is fudged in the name of an agenda.
What is seen is the personal destruction of those seeking to examine evidence of whether there is proof of I.D. To even suggest it the person is tagged as a fundamentalist and banned. Your post is a great example of the fascist mindset.
As for quoting a court case, are you serious? Then I guess you feel great about Kelo v. New London, or Lawrence v. Texas. Or how about Roe v Wade?
No, bring all the I.D. folks in from all walks of life. Fund them. Let them do the research. Then review it honestly on its merits. Until the witch hunt ends no one should trust the high priests of academia. For they are not honorable.
And the government schools are the root cause of this whole controversy. If we all sent our kids to private schools of our choice, some of us would send our kids to secular schools, some to Christian schools and some to madrassahs or other nut factories. In any event, if we had a problem with the schools curriculum we would be free to send our kids to another school with a different curriculum.
If you ask me (I know you didn’t) it’s islam that’s being forced down the throats of students. God is being kicked into the void and mohammed is filling that void.
I agree that the scientific method needs to be upheld and that ID needs to be held to that standard. I think ID’s biggest problem is its inability to identify a creator or designer, probably ever. Another problem is that if they could some how qualify scientifically that design is a possibility without proof of a creator they would more than likely still have to deal with evolution.
“No - evolution is science”
Yesterday you stated that evoltion is a theory.
Now today it is science.
Both the Big Bang THEROY and The THEROY of Evoltion are just that .
THEROIES, nothing more. Just something to talk about.
BTW, name three things you believe in that are conseravtive values.
Now that is bunk. Our science went along just fine with-out evolution and with creation in the class room up until the 1930’s, which by that time we had become the most technologically advanced nation on earth.
No SPECIFIC religion or dogma should be taught in school.
After a teacher’s announcement, “Y’all be good;” it all goes downhill from there.
I don’t think you quite understand what scientific theory is. Scientific theory is everything, there is actually very little scientific fact out there.
But that's not how it's working out, is it? Just google islam in American schools some day when you have the time.
True, but creation was more widely taught in schools, and was taught until the 1960’s and our technology never suffered. I am not arguing for ID or creationism, just that stupid point that we would fall into the dark ages of technology advancement if we somehow made a blurb or two about ID, which I am not in favor of, at least not in science class.
What’s the “Theroy of Evoltion”? “THEROIES”? “Conseravtive”?
Evolution is science. It is also a theory.
Suggest, I do, that you look up what the word theory means in a scientific context.
So are you happy with 1930’s era tech?
You're right. Except for a few fields, it doesn't really matter much what you believe about evolution or creation. A creationist could design an airplane, write a computer program or study the atmosphere just as well as an evolutionist. The academic success of Christian schools provides ample proof of that.
If I was in the 1930’s, yeah I would be. But your new argument is running off the assumption that technology would have stalled after 1930 if creationism stayed and that prior to 1930 there was no advancement, both laughable assertions.
Wow. I misspeled a word so that invaldts my hole postg.
Looks lik evoltin didnt help you one bite.
creationism wasn’t used as a method to gut science. ID on the other hand does gut science.
One can not explore / question the universe when the answer to every question is ‘%deity% did it so don’t question it’.
It doesn’t help that the set of people who support ID overlaps quite a bit with the set of people who think vaccines are evil and the set of people who think the world is 6,000 years old.
Just my 2 cents.
"Potential" is correct, since there isn't any actual evidence, nor has any "potential" evidence been offered by the ID promoters.
ID is an idea. A philosophy. An alternative without any evidence for science to examine.
In the event ID promoters offer something other than the promise of "potential" evidence, I'm sure science will thoroughly examine it.
I dont mind them teaching ID nonsense in public schools. Most students are going to come out dumb-as-a-stump, heads full of mush, and uneducated anyway. The few students interested in science will be informed or inform themselves regardless.
NOT an attack, merely a statement of fact Tokenatheist.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.