Should Intelligent Design be taught in science class?

[questor]

Dave, i think the dragon example is childish. give me your own example of some evidence

that a creator doesn't exist. maybe you could define what you mean by creator.

[questor]

Irish, you said:

''That's not quite how it works. Again, you can NOT prove the non-existence of something. The burden to prove whether or not there is an intelligent designer lays on the person that is making the claim. In other words, if you want to say that everything was designed, then you must bring forth some proof of your claims. And sorry, but 'in my opinion there is more evidence for the idea of a designer' just doesn't cut it.''

 

i have not said that there WAS a creator. i said nobody knows. and you cannot prove there was not, like i cannot prove there was. what i said was that there is more evidence that ID is present than that it is NOT present. if you have any evidence that disproves there is no ID, why not present it-you must have a reason for your position.

[IrishEyes]

i have not said that there WAS a creator. i said nobody knows. and you cannot prove there was not, like i cannot prove there was. what i said was that there is more evidence that ID is present than that it is NOT present. if you have any evidence that disproves there is no ID, why not present it-you must have a reason for your position.

 

And I said:

In other words, if you want to say that everything was designed, then you must bring forth some proof of your claims.

(again, emphasis added)

 

You claim that there is more evidence that ID is present than that it is NOT present. Let's see your 'eveidence'.

The burden of proof is on YOU. The sooner you understand that, the better you will get along here. :)

[IrishEyes]

if you have any evidence that disproves there is no ID, why not present it-you must have a reason for your position.

Will someone please enlighten this person as to what side of this discussion I am on, please? :)

[TRoutMac]

Because science is not concerned with things which have no evidence either way.

 

Okay, there's your presupposition. There certainly is evidence (even if you say that evidence doesn't necessarily constitute proof) of Intelligent Design.

 

In the interest of demonstrating my objectivity, (and to make an important point) I will say that homology in mammals could be considered "evidence" of macro-evolution (hypothesis A) just as it can be considered "evidence" of a common designer using similar design themes (hypothesis :). The next step is to look for other evidences that might lend support to one hypothesis or the other.

 

TRoutMac

Bend, Oregon

[Tormod]

So what? You folks are insisting that it was NOT designed, and that we can't even consider that a possibility. Here's the "so what": If it wasn't hamstrung by this paradigm of "naturalistic explanations only", science would be free to examine the evidence and test THE I.D. hypothesis, (in ways similar to that which I've already decribed) and science would conclude based on the evidence, that the I.D. hypothesis is supported incredibly well, and evolution would be abandoned entirely; relegated to the heap of other discarded, formerly-scientific ideas.

 

That's what.

 

TRoutMac

Bend, Oregon

 

You missed my point. All you wuold be able to find with a theory that says "the universe might have been designed" is that the universe *might* have been designed. You will not find out that it has been designed.

 

I don't rule out the possibility that the universe was designed. I don't believe it, however, and I don't view it as a scientific endeavour.

 

BTW how can you be so sure what science would conclude? That's my most fundamental problem with ID-er's - they have no idea what science is about. All they want to do is slam it, claim ot for their own (for inexplicable reasons), and show that it can be used as a tool to prove something it cannot prove.

[questor]

Irish, i don't care which side you are on. you seem to want to play a game solely by your rules. you want to know my views without offering your own so you can shoot me down.

i'll be glad to post my reasons for believing there is a creator if you post your reasons as to why there is not. fair enough?

[Tormod]

Dave, i think the dragon example is childish. give me your own example of some evidence that a creator doesn't exist. maybe you could define what you mean by creator.

 

If you ask for this kind of proof *once* more, I will ban you from Hypography. It has been explained to you many times now that it is impossible to prove the non-existence of something.

 

Please stop your crusade here and find something worthwhile to spend your energy on.

[Tormod]

Irish, i don't care which side you are on. you seem to want to play a game solely by your rules. you want to know my views without offering your own so you can shoot me down.

i'll be glad to post my reasons for believing there is a creator if you post your reasons as to why there is not. fair enough?

 

Irisheyes is a fundamentalist Baptist who probably knows more reasons for why God exists than you can think of.

 

She is, however, fully capable of taking part in a discussion, something you do not seem to be.

[IrishEyes]

i'll be glad to post my reasons for believing there is a creator if you post your reasons as to why there is not. fair enough?

Fair enough? Puh-leaze.

What is this, 5th grade? I'll show you mine if you show me yours? Give me a break already. :)

Either you actually have some sort of proof, or reasons, or evidentiary evidence, OR you don't. Whether or not I believe that there is, is not, or may be a creator is not relevant.

It's put up or shut up time, big guy. Show us your reasons or stay out of the discussion.

[IrishEyes]

Irisheyes is a fundamentalist Baptist who probably knows more reasons for why God exists than you can think of.

 

She is, however, fully capable of taking part in a discussion, something you do not seem to be.

Thanks, T. You actually managed to say all of that without laughing. :)

I appreciate the vote of confidence.

[questor]

Tormod, you seem to have a problem with me. you have accused me of some crusade, when all i am doing is seeking answers to questions. i, as well as anyone else, have a right to my beliefs which i reach upon exercising reason. i do not claim to have ultimate knowledge, but i have a right to seek. you consistently accuse me of not understanding

''science''. i have had 3 years of university and graduate school training in chemistry, biochemistry, 1 year in physics, 3 years math, histology and other bio sciences. maybe you should consult with another monitor before you summarily ban someone for a harmless discussion.

[questor]

by the way, you and Irish may take note that in my discussions i don't use the word God.

did you happen to notice?

[rockytriton]

Just out of curiosity, why do you put the word "science" in quotes?

[Tormod]

by the way, you and Irish may take note that in my discussions i don't use the word God.

did you happen to notice?

 

Yes, I noticed. ID-ers are usually clever that way. Note that I have not claimed that you know any reasons why God exists.

[IrishEyes]

maybe you should consult with another monitor before you summarily ban someone for a harmless discussion.

Ok, I'm going to do a bit of edjoomuckating here. Listen up!

Tormod does not need to 'consult with another monitor' about ANYTHING. Do you understand that?

A-N-Y-T-H-I-N-G

 

Do you know why? I'll clue you in on a little secret only a few THOUSAND other members know:

 

THIS IS TORMOD'S SITE. He created it. He built it. He pays for it.

That means that if he decides you (or anyone else) should be banned, it will be done.

 

Do you comprehend this concept now?

And frankly, he may not get the chance to push the ban button, as I may do it first. Cuz guess what... if you guessed that I'm allowed to ban at will as well, you'd be correct!

 

Shape up or get out of here, ok?

[Tormod]

Tormod, you seem to have a problem with me. you have accused me of some crusade, when all i am doing is seeking answers to questions. i, as well as anyone else, have a right to my beliefs which i reach upon exercising reason.

 

Over and over and over and over again. We are responding to your requests and telling you you're not getting any answers from us. How many times must we explain it to you?

 

Yes, you are on a crusade here - your postcount vs posts about ID ratio shows it loud and clear. You are trying to show the stupidity of science and the idiocy of not accepting ID as the truth.

 

Enough already. If you have such a thorough education I suggest you show it by participating in our science discussions where I am sure you have a lot to contribute.