Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: GodGunsGuts

Not to beat an old horse, but it seems pretty reasonable to teach only science in science classes. Intelligent design makes a lot of sense to me, but it’s not science and does not belong in a science class. Science is (or used to be) about provability based on demonstrable facts, and intelligent design is in the realm of a church or a philosophy class.


4 posted on 11/11/2009 8:01:42 PM PST by ElectronVolt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: ElectronVolt

Darwin’s evo-atheist creation myth has never been science. As many have pointed out, it is nothing more than “a long argument” devoid of macroevolutionary detail. But just out of curiosity, why are you assuming that Creation/Intelligent Design is not science?


5 posted on 11/11/2009 8:18:12 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies ]

To: ElectronVolt
> Not to beat an old horse, but it seems pretty reasonable to teach only science in science classes. Intelligent design makes a lot of sense to me, but it’s not science and does not belong in a science class. Science is (or used to be) about provability based on demonstrable facts, and intelligent design is in the realm of a church or a philosophy class.

Suggestion: Don't bother, unless you've got asbestos underwear. Wrong thread for debate, this is a bash-Darwin thread. :)

> Science is ... about provability based on demonstrable facts...

I know what you mean, but... no.

[Climbs on soap-box...] Science does not claim to "prove" anything. Proper scientific method is about challenge and disproving, which is how conjecture is strengthened into hypothesis and hypothesis is strengthened into theory. Proper science offers testable predictions of as-yet unobserved things, which if/when they are observed, DO NOT PROVE anything, but they eliminate yet another area of disproof. See how it works?

(BTW, mathematics can "prove" things because it limits its own scope. Science (done right) can only disprove, because it has unlimited scope.)

Evolutionists have sometimes far overstepped the bounds of proper science by attempting to "prove" things about evolution. Sorry, can't be done.

OTOH, Intelligent Design is just creationism with lipstick. It is not at all like science, because it only offers an explanation without disprovable hypotheses or testable predictions of as-yet unobserved things. If there is nothing to challenge and disprove, you don't have a scientific theory, you have a tale. Maybe a very good tale, could even be a true tale, but it's not science.

The first great mistake of creationists is that they set up the strawman of "proof" and say that science fails at it. But proof is not the goal of science. The true goal of science is to see which explanation/model holds up best against challenges which attempt to disprove its predictions. ID makes no testable predictions; it is a static model.

Those scientists who recklessly claim science "proves" anything are either speaking inaccurately for the lay press, or they are flat-out lying.

The second great mistake of creationists is that they set up the strawman of "perfection" and claim that as long as there is anything incomplete about evolution, then it must be false. This is because their model for truth is the Bible, the revealed word of God, which is (by definition) perfect. Nothing man-made can stand alongside God as an equal, so naturally evolution is seen as wrong.

FWIW, in my spiritual cosmology, God created the universe (at the Big Bang), set the rules (the laws of physics), and let 'er rip. Been going for the last 13-odd billion years pretty well. One of my personal life goals is to figure out some of how the rules work, which is why I got my degree in physics, not something else. God may be smiling patiently at my paltry efforts, I dunno.

The Hubble ultra deep field photo is the nearest I have to a picture of the smile of God.

Anyway, IMO, don't bother. :)

Now watch -me- get flamed.

14 posted on 11/11/2009 9:14:32 PM PST by dayglored (Listen, strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies ]

To: ElectronVolt

“Intelligent design makes a lot of sense to me, but it’s not science “

Neither is evolution.


20 posted on 11/12/2009 4:55:53 AM PST by RoadTest (The LORD loveth the gates of Zion more than all the dwellings of Jacob. - Psalm 87:2)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies ]

To: ElectronVolt; GodGunsGuts

The ToE itself is based on philosophy, the interpretation of the fossil record based on a philosophical world view and as such does not belong in science class either.

Teach all or none.

Don’t give one creation account precedence over another.

If it were simply a matter of real science, I’d agree, but the ToE is one of the biggest tools used in the attack on Christianity going.

And besides, there’s not one shred of evidence that teaching creation and ID along with evolution is going to harm one’s science education in the least.

The teaching of evolution only has had a monopoly in the public school system for decades and our performance in the sciences and math has continued to tank worldwide over the same time period.

Most private Christian schools and homeschoolers teach both and consistently have better standardized test scores and SAT/ACT scores than their public school counterparts, who are not taught to think for themselves.

I’ve asked the evos several times to provide evidence that teaching creation and/or ID hurts a student in the scientific fields and have yet to receive any response other than mockery and ridicule.

No one has to date, provided one source of verifiable data to support their contention.

The students in public high schools aren’t even getting the teaching of evolution right at that grade level. It’s a pretty sure thing that grade schoolers won’t. All this just smacks of trying to brainwash the kids at an earlier age in the hopes that more will come to believe in the ToE, although why that’s so important to some is still a mystery, which is another reason that it puts the whole issue in the ideological arena.

One can understand the ToE as presented and not accept it as true or accurate, but that seems to be irrelevant. One must ACCEPT the ToE as true to satisfy the evos.


22 posted on 11/12/2009 5:42:12 AM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies ]

To: ElectronVolt

You “conservatives” on FR will bemoan big government trying to use tax dollars to indoctrinate kids and using high taxes to create a welfare state until it comes to doing so by forcing Darwinism. You rant about the media and the schools teaching leftism to the exclusion of other ideas until it comes to Darwin. You get angry about Marxism but support the Marxist school system. You’re all frauds.


23 posted on 11/12/2009 6:19:07 AM PST by demshateGod (The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies ]

To: ElectronVolt; dayglored; All

The biggest problem for evolution claiming to be science is that most of its’ claims are based on assumptions and interpretations of history. Nothing scientific nor empirical is involved in its’ most grandiouse claims.

Neiher are any of its’ weaknesses allowed to be discussed. I’d guess from your own comments that neither of you two are even aware it has any weaknesses?


28 posted on 11/12/2009 7:14:26 AM PST by BrandtMichaels
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies ]

To: ElectronVolt

That would be a reasonable opinion, IF there were the ability to have a non-science based ID class also. Since there is not, the attempt needs to be made to get it in somewhere.


31 posted on 11/12/2009 8:14:45 AM PST by RoadGumby (Ask me about Ducky)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies ]

To: ElectronVolt; metmom

“Intelligent design makes a lot of sense to me, but it’s not science and does not belong in a science class”.

Alot of scientists disagree.

www.dissentfromdarwin.org

Alot of parents if not most, also disagree.

And I know most FReepers disagree.

Virtually all conservatives and Christians disagree.


36 posted on 11/12/2009 3:56:03 PM PST by tpanther (Science was, is and will forever be a small subset of God's creation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson