Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Intelligent Design Should Not be Taught as Science


  • Please log in to reply
77 replies to this topic

#69 Grains

Grains

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 155 posts

Posted 07 July 2008 - 10:39 PM

On the top right hand corner of every post is a number. That is the sequential number representing where that particular post lands in the chronological order of thread posts where the topic is being discussed.

Beside that is a word that says, "Permalink." Click that, and you will see the URL in your address bar change. You now have a link directly to that post.

If you copy that link from your address bar, you can post it into any reply you make.


Thank you!

#70 Grains

Grains

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 155 posts

Posted 07 July 2008 - 10:41 PM

Then you are delusional.


Here is the link as I say I have no proof. He calls me delusional and I am simply stating that I did say it.

http://hypography.co...html#post227406

I bolded it for you.

#71 REASON

REASON

    Reasonably Reasonable

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1687 posts

Posted 07 July 2008 - 11:11 PM

Here is the link as I say I have no proof. He calls me delusional and I am simply stating that I did say it.

http://hypography.co...html#post227406

I bolded it for you.


I don't believe I have ever called you delusional. I do think you have a difficult time distinguishing your beliefs from your knowledge, but I'm not ready to imply you are delusional. Others might.

Generally, I think you have formed your beliefs around what you have been taught, and it has become part of your identity. To reject the idea of god at this point for you is to reject part of who you've become - a part of yourself that you are comfortable with and enjoy. It doesn't make any sense to you whatsoever to reject, and ultimately betray, this fundamental aspect of your persona.

To me, this means your're simply set in your beliefs. And because your belief in god is so ingrained and feels so right, you percieve it as a sense of knowing.

But knowing requires more than just perception. So what you are left with, is simply a belief.

As to the topic of this thread, the foundation of Intelligent Design is also just a belief, which is why it belongs in the realm of philosophy or religion, not science, which is geared around attempting to know something by examining empirical evidence.

Do you see the difference?

#72 Grains

Grains

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 155 posts

Posted 07 July 2008 - 11:26 PM

I don't believe I have ever called you delusional. I do think you have a difficult time distinguishing your beliefs from your knowledge, but I'm not ready to imply you are delusional. Others might.

Generally, I think you have formed your beliefs around what you have been taught, and it has become part of your identity. To reject the idea of god at this point for you is to reject part of who you've become - a part of yourself that you are comfortable with and enjoy. It doesn't make any sense to you whatsoever to reject, and ultimately betray, this fundamental aspect of your persona.

To me, this means your're simply set in your beliefs. And because your belief in god is so ingrained and feels so right, you percieve it as a sense of knowing.

But knowing requires more than just perception. So what you are left with, is simply a belief.

As to the topic of this thread, the foundation of Intelligent Design is also just a belief, which is why it belongs in the realm of philosophy or religion, not science, which is geared around attempting to know something by examining empirical evidence.

Do you see the difference?


You are right.

I never meant that you called me delusional. I have realized tonight that I need to get a grasp on this thread thing a little better. I started in one thread and I tried expanding out and then I was getting all these emails from a ton of people who were responding to my post...then somebody told me to move my thread so I did...then somebody sent me a pm telling me to post here and I got lost in the madness and all I am left with is a whole bunch of jargon in a whole bunch of places. I feel like I just got jumped by a gang. Wait, maybe I was. Anyways here is the link I was referring to the delusional reference from my favorite stalker Infinatenow.

http://hypography.co...html#post227560

He was calling me a liar (he does that quite often and I am 1 for 1) for not saying I admitted I had not scientific proof and I was simply posting that I had admitted earlier to not having it for him.

#73 InfiniteNow

InfiniteNow

    Suspended

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9148 posts

Posted 07 July 2008 - 11:30 PM

Grains,

Reason said a lot of things in his post. Can you please elaborate? Saying "You are right" seems a bit of a cop-out, and is disrespectful to the readers here who are trying to figure out where you stand on this issue.

#74 Grains

Grains

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 155 posts

Posted 07 July 2008 - 11:36 PM

Grains,

Reason said a lot of things in his post. Can you please elaborate? Saying "You are right" seems a bit of a cop-out, and is disrespectful to the readers here who are trying to figure out where you stand on this issue.


I am sorry if it is disrespectful. For a second I thought it was disrespectful that I had an unfamiliar opinion to this forum. I think it would be more beneficial for the group of you to decipher what I have said into your words and post my opinion for me. I would feel better about that.

#75 InfiniteNow

InfiniteNow

    Suspended

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9148 posts

Posted 07 July 2008 - 11:51 PM

Back on topic,

Intelligent Design should NOT be taught in public schools. It is a big lie, and it damages children too much. Children should have access to the most valid concepts and the most robust explanations. Teaching them lies is not only detrimental to them, but also to our collective future, as well as our ability to solve the problems our culture and our species face on this planet.

#76 InfiniteNow

InfiniteNow

    Suspended

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9148 posts

Posted 08 July 2008 - 09:16 AM

The below was taken from the blog to which I linked.


stand up for REAL science

REAL science...


Recognizes its limits - Science only works with phenomena that can be independently verified by observations or empirical tests. This is a practical approach to the study of the natural world that has proven to be extremely conducive to the advancement of scientific knowledge. Since this approach does not rule out the existence of non-verifiable phenomena, any claims about the existence or non-existence of such phenomena are not scientific.


Enriches our understanding of the universe - Science enhances our appreciation of ourselves and of the world around us. It does not attempt to supplant or displace other ways of knowing, such as philosophy, religion, or ethics. Knowledge gained through scientific investigation is transferable to other contexts, but science does not invalidate other modes of human inquiry.


Approximates reality - Science is not an attempt to prove hypotheses, but rather an attempt to falsify them. The purpose of a scientific model is to provide a conceptual framework that guides and directs future research. Although all foundational scientific models have been extensively tested, no scientific model should ever be viewed as absolute truth. All scientific models are tentative and subject to potential modification as new empirical evidence becomes available.


Leads to new knowledge - Science is a systematic approach to developing physical, mathematical, and conceptual models for understanding the natural world. The best scientific models are those that have both explanatory and predictive power. In other words, scientific models should not only explain what is currently known, they should routinely generate new hypotheses for further research.

Everyone in this debate wants a better world, and we can all benefit from the knowledge gained through the application of the scientific method. When it comes to science education, our goal should be to teach our children to understand and appreciate the scientific method so that it can be utilized for the benefit of all humanity. Consequently, we must not allow the quality of science education in our public schools to be compromised by the current culture war concerning who holds "the Truth."

We have an obligation to our children to pursue only the best available science. We should accept nothing less than REAL science in our public school science classrooms.


  • GAHD likes this

#77 Thunderbird

Thunderbird

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1814 posts

Posted 08 July 2008 - 09:22 AM

Back on topic,

Intelligent Design should NOT be taught in public schools. It is a big lie, and it damages children too much. Children should have access to the most valid concepts and the most robust explanations. Teaching them lies is not only detrimental to them, but also to our collective futured, as well as our ability to solve the problems our culture and our species face on this planet.

I agree, now can you give me an educated perspective on the role of religion in society.

#78 freeztar

freeztar

    Pondering

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8445 posts

Posted 08 July 2008 - 09:54 AM

I agree, now can you give me an educated perspective on the role of religion in society.


There's a lot of discussion on this in the following thread:
http://hypography.co...ul-society.html

*Don't be turned-off by the thread title. The discussion goes both ways.