Judgement Day: ID on Trial (LC)

[Splendour]

[ QUOTE ]
<font color="blue"> Many scientists are divided on this issue. </font>

Why do you guys insist on lying about this? Many scientists are NOT divided on this issue! Only a scant minority are. The overwhleming majority of scientists accept evolution. Period. Stop lying!

[/ QUOTE ]

You know what Lestat even if the scientists are as much in sync as you say I still want to hear the Intelligent Designers. People are finding out more everyday. Luckyme just found an article [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

We're probably a long ways away from them figuring everything out and I intend to give any budding scientist out there his headstart. They are my tax dollars after all.

[Neuge]

[ QUOTE ]
Many scientists are divided on this issue. Science isn't served by dominance of 1 area of science. Science is much too complicated and interrelated with other areas of science to hold one aspect of science as iconic over another. Besides science is almost constantly under revision. Do you think everything we are taught is always correct? Aren't people constantly learning, relearning, applying and re-applying. People can't find the mistakes if you don't teach everything. Besides what if a discovery spins off from the teaching of intelligent design?

[/ QUOTE ]
This is what you are missing Splendour.

Scientists are not divided on this issue. The ID movement (formerly the scientific creationism movement) has framed the public, especially Christian, perception of the issue to make it seem so, but it's just not the case. Evolution is one of the most well supported and tested theories in all of science. Very few scientists actively disbelieve its conclusions, and the ones who do always seem to do so for theological reasons.

Also, ID is not science. It makes no hypotheses or testable prediction. It attempts to retrofit weaknesses of evolution and gaps in evidence as support for ID. It creates a false dilemma that either evolution or creationism is correct, and since we haven't found evidence to support X, Y, and Z being a product of evolution, evolution must be false and thus by default ID is true.

The public ID/evolution debate isn't about teaching "both sides" of the issue, it's about blatantly lying to children in support of religious ideals. One side wishes to cloud the issue with doublespeak and, unfortunately, they're very good at it.

[tame_deuces]

Yep, what the above poster said.

Scientists are not divided on this issue. If you stick to the position that they are Splendour, then you have nothing to do in this thread. Sorry to be so blunt but it is true. People have tried to explain this to you dozens of times but you simply don't listen:

'Good science is not about proving yourself right. It is about trying to prove yourself wrong and failing.'

Until you accept this principle anything you claim about science and anything you claim about scientists can't be taken seriously. So please reread it until you do.

[bluesbassman]

[ QUOTE ]
Quote: a transparent sham created to sneak religious teachings into high school science curricula.

Why is it a sham?

[/ QUOTE ]

There is no scientific theory of ID, no peer-reviewed publication record, nor any university research being conducted. It's nothing more than a repackaging of creationism to attempt to make it more politically viable. In other words, it's a sham disguised as science.

Compare it to, for example, continental drift, which became part of the theory of plate tectonics. When continental drift was first proposed, it wasn't accepted by most geologists. Rather than lobby school boards and speak at churches, the proponents of continental drift published evidence. Eventually it was accepted by virtually all geologists, and is now taught at the high school level.

Why don't the proponents of ID proceed the same way?

[ QUOTE ]

Lots of things overlap in this world. Since when are parents to give up all responsibility for their children's education?

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you understand what is a non sequitur? Nobody is denying a parents' right and responsibility to educate their children. Any parent is free, for example, to teach astrology to their kids as "science." (Or send them to a private school which does.) That doesn't imply it's appropriate to teach astrology in a public school science class, since astrology is not part of any accepted mainstream scientific theory.

[ QUOTE ]
Many scientists are divided on this issue.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong. There is no scientific controversy at all regarding evolution.

[ QUOTE ]
Do you think everything we are taught is always correct?

[/ QUOTE ]

Every scientific theory is continually being revised and considered potentially falsifiable according to any new evidence. So what? That doesn't mean schools should cast universal doubt over all of science, or start teaching pseudo-scientific nonsense as an "alternative."

[remainder of your rant snipped.]

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Scientists may indeed be in dispute over the "how" of evolution, e.g., was natural selection the driving force, but not over whether or not evolution occurred. I think there's a pretty solid consensus on that.

[Splendour]

[ QUOTE ]
Yep, what the above poster said.

Scientists are not divided on this issue. If you stick to the position that they are Splendour, then you have nothing to do in this thread. Sorry to be so blunt but it is true. People have tried to explain this to you dozens of times but you simply don't listen:

'Good science is not about proving yourself right. It is about trying to prove yourself wrong and failing.'

Until you accept this principle anything you claim about science and anything you claim about scientists can't be taken seriously. So please reread it until you do.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ahhh what you said is starting to make sense.
This article corroborates what you are saying:
http://www.vincentcheung.com/2005/07...ew-of-science/

[Lestat]

<font color="blue">You know what Lestat even if the scientists are as much in sync as you say </font>

But it's not a matter of "even if...". There is no "IF". They ARE in sync as I say. And you don't have to take my word for it. Do a little research for yourself.

It's one thing to believe in god, but you don't have to embarrass yourself when it comes to evolution and science.

[Splendour]

Did you see my link above Lestat? Its a very enlightening link.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
<font color="blue"> Many scientists are divided on this issue. </font>

Why do you guys insist on lying about this? Many scientists are NOT divided on this issue! Only a scant minority are. The overwhleming majority of scientists accept evolution. Period. Stop lying!

[/ QUOTE ]

You know what Lestat even if the scientists are as much in sync as you say I still want to hear the Intelligent Designers. People are finding out more everyday. Luckyme just found an article [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

We're probably a long ways away from them figuring everything out and I intend to give any budding scientist out there his headstart. They are my tax dollars after all.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please join a PTA and try to figure out how to get infinity potential explanations for biodiversity into a science curriculum. Should change your tune a bit.

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
John Robbins has pointed out that there are at least five logical difficulties with science, i.e., five reasons why science can never give us truth:2



[/ QUOTE ]

The article fails to address that there is no reason to believe the Bible gives the truth.

The entire articles also starts with the premise that science is useful only for manipulating God's world... the author loses all credibility since he's basing his theories on an illogical and unproven premise.