Should Intelligent Design be taught in science class?

[Kizzi]

Could the 'Intelligent Designers' be future scientists who developed time travelling abilities and came back through time to cause macro-evolution, along with causing the Big Bang?

 

Looking forward to Trout Mac's Reply..........

 

KiZzI :)

[TRoutMac]

I would argue with this kid, but for some reason I get the idea that this is just some little kid sitting around in his mom's basement trying to find ways to make people on the science forums angry, meanwhile he is probably just laughing at us while we go mad.

 

I must really be frustrating you all. So far today, about all I've received are attacks and insults. Nice forum you have here. You'd think someone here would be able to answer the tough questions and back it up.

 

Again, you don't have to be here. You can stick around or not, of course you know it's up to you. But I don't understand what use there is making these kinds of derogatory, insulting posts.

 

TRoutMac

Bend, Oregon

[Tormod]

Now, just curious. DO you believe that macro-evolution is a scientifically valid theory? DO you believe that macro-evolution should be taught to the exclusion of I.D. in public schools, as it has been for a number of years?

 

A) The only people who haev problems with macroevolution are ID-ers, generally spoken. I don't separate "macro" from other kinds of evolution - I am a Darwinist in that respect. I do not "believe" in evolution in the sense that I view it as science and not religion - it is as very much else a part of science and it is well founded and well proven. Thus it is not faith based the way ID is. The evidence for evolution has been discussed over and over here at Hypography, and we regularly post news items about it, too.

 

:) ID is a relatively new Christian front and as such can't claim to have been excluded for schools for very long. I am against all teaching of religion in school outside of history and social sciences class.

 

To the extent that I have put words into your mouth, I apologize. But if this is a science site, then why don't the opponents of I.D. (whoever they may be) care to reply with science-based reasoned responses or arguments? Why, instead, do some merely poke their heads into the forum and make wise-cracks about how boring the topic is to them?

 

As you may have noticed this is not the first ID debate and you are using the EXACT same arguments that we have heard before. Plus you are spending *all your time* here ate Hypography posting in this thread, which does not give you a lot of credibility and thus opens up for wisecracking.

 

I have read the rules, Tormod, and I do not see how I am in violation of them.

 

Then you do not understand them, which I can't be blamed for. Points 4, 5, 6 and 7 are prime examples.

 

Rather, I see now a few others in this discussion have been in violation. Namely, the "Hit & Run" post from Rocky, and, in fact, from YOU when you recently posted this sarcastic remark in the midst of an otherwise serious discussion:

 

"The Bible is not a religious book. And intelligent design is not a poorly hidden Christian front. Right. How many times will this gobbledygook turn up."

 

This is not a hit and run post but (again) a comment upon the fact that this discussion has happened many times, and a) The Bible is of course a religious book, and :D ID is a Christian movement no matter how much they like to hide that fact - nearly all (note the "nearly") proponents of ID state that the Christian God is the designer.

 

It's tiring to see it pop up, and to see the same arguments, and the same people, spending a lot of time purporting something that is at best ignorant and at worst anti-scientific in a forum where we do discuss science. This very forum you are in is a theology forum, not an Intelligent Design forum.

 

Not that I mind, exactly, but another poster to this discussion sent me a private message without my permission, which is also a violation of the rules.

 

No, it is not against the rules to send PMs to you. How do you expect people to know that you do not want PMs? Should they give you a call first?

 

But once again I will ask you to tell me what rules I have violated. I don't believe I have violated ONE of them.

 

Of course you don't. But I have replied to this above. The part about "It is generally a good idea to search the forums to see if what you want to discuss has been discussed before." is quite important.

 

Since this is straying off topic I will stop here.

[TRoutMac]

Could the 'Intelligent Designers' be future scientists who developed time travelling abilities and came back through time to cause macro-evolution, along with causing the Big Bang?

 

Looking forward to Trout Mac's Reply..........

 

Well, I was going to say this post belonged in the "strange claims" section, but I do see that it's posed as a question, so I guess I'll lay off.

 

That's not feasible for a whole host of reasons, but sticking to the topic at hand, there's simply no evidence to support macro-evolution. Micro-evolution, yes. Macro? No. So, it doesn't matter what you invoke as the cause… time-travelling future humans, God, whatever… macro-evolution doesn't work.

 

TRoutMac

Bend, Oregon

[Tormod]

I must really be frustrating you all. So far today, about all I've received are attacks and insults. Nice forum you have here. You'd think someone here would be able to answer the tough questions and back it up.

 

Again, you don't have to be here. You can stick around or not, of course you know it's up to you. But I don't understand what use there is making these kinds of derogatory, insulting posts.

 

TRoutMac

Bend, Oregon

 

Of course you see it as attacks and insults. It is because you do not care to follow our rules.

 

Telling the rest of us that we don't have to spend our time here is, well, asking for it.

[Turtle]

Why is it when someone defends themself on this forum (especially to the powers-that- be) - it is construed to be 'violating the rules', however, when the powers-that-be insult, it's considered a relevant comment :)

 

___In general, this thread may shed some light on your question:

http://hypography.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3680&page=2&pp=10&highlight=game+theory

 

___Post #18 in specific. You of course have the option to start your own forum. :D

[TRoutMac]

A) The only people who have problems with macroevolution are ID-ers, generally spoken.

 

Isn't that stating the obvious? Tautology? Why would macro-evolutionists have a problem with macro-evolution?

 

"4. Statements like "I just know that this is the way it is" (especially when religion is being discussed) are considered ignorant and might be deleted."

 

Since visiting this forum this pretty well describes many of the posts that have been offered in defense of evolution or in opposition to ID.

 

"5. If you ask for opinions, respect the replies you get."

 

I have respected the replies I get to my questions, few though there have been. I have taken those replies seriously and shown the logical result of the opinions expressed therein. (i.e., Darwinists believe that matter and energy are eternal, that type of thing.) So, you might even say I respect your (collectively) replies more than any of you do, because I expect your answers to be consistent and logical. You (collectively) apparently have no such expectation of your own views.

 

"6. It is generally a good idea not to spend all your time in only a few topics."

 

"Generally a good idea"? I don't care to visit other forums. This is the one I prefer to post in. So while it might be a "good idea" in general, in my specific situation, I have deemed it to be NOT a good idea.

 

"7. Do not endlessly show us that *your* theory is the *only* truth. And don't follow this up by making people look stupid for pointing out that there are other answers, especially if they provide links and resources. It will get you banned!"

 

Again, sounds like you're describing those who have posted here in opposition to I.D. You (collectively) think that Darwinism is the ONLY TRUTH and you try to make me look stupid for pointing out that there are other (and better) answers.

 

:) ID is a relatively new Christian front and as such can't claim to have been excluded for schools for very long. I am against all teaching of religion in school outside of history and social sciences class.

 

Pardon me, but if you believe evolution should be taught in schools, then you believe that religion should be taught in schools. Evolution is religion, completely faith-based, and it carries with it a religious philosophy.

 

Plus you are spending *all your time* here ate Hypography posting in this thread, which does not give you a lot of credibility and thus opens up for wisecracking.

 

Oh, I see. So it's against the rules to make 'wisecracks', UNLESS the person you're making wisecracks to has only posted under ONE Forum topic. (and especially if they're an "IDer". He, he) Yeah, somehow I missed that little nuance when I re-read the rules about the hit-and-run posts.

 

Sounds to me like you can make the rules say whatever you want them to say, whenever you want them to say it. And I'd say that's about parr for the course. That's about the level of objectivity I'd expect from Darwinists in general.

 

TRoutMac

Bend, Oregon

[TRoutMac]

I see your point. But I don't believe science is really opposed to I.D. (the Bible), they are merely opposed to 'religion', they just haven't made the distinction between the two yet.

 

Oh, I'm with you one hundred percent.

 

In the truest sense, science is really God's defender, and religion is God's enemy.

 

EXACTLY!! You nailed it!! Bravo!! Strictly speaking, "religion" IS God's enemy (and mankind's invention). Christianity, however, is not really "religion".

 

I know that sounds really twisted but consider: God created nature, so then the Bible will not contradict nature (science), but rather, will defend it. So then if science 'defends nature', they are reallly defending God. Do you see what I'm getting at?

 

It doesn't sound A BIT twisted. It's EXACTLY right. That science MUST oppose the Biblical account is propaganda and only reveals the bias and presuppositions of those who are pushing Darwinism.

 

TRoutMac

Bend, Oregon

[Tormod]

Pardon me, but if you believe evolution should be taught in schools, then you believe that religion should be taught in schools. Evolution is religion, completely faith-based, and it carries with it a religious philosophy.

 

:) *falls off chair*

[rockytriton]

I must really be frustrating you all. So far today, about all I've received are attacks and insults. Nice forum you have here. You'd think someone here would be able to answer the tough questions and back it up.

 

Again, you don't have to be here. You can stick around or not, of course you know it's up to you. But I don't understand what use there is making these kinds of derogatory, insulting posts.

 

TRoutMac

Bend, Oregon

 

Sorry if you took it as deragatory or insulting, it wasn't meant that way, I was just making an observation.

[C1ay]

The fact that these things exist at all is EVIDENCE that they were created.

No it's not, it's evidence that they exist. It is not evidence that they have or haven't existed for eternity. There is no evidence that mass or energy can be created or destroyed.

[pgrmdave]

Christianity, however, is not really "religion"

 

I think that some christians on this site may take a bit of offense at this.

[TRoutMac]

No it's not, it's evidence that they exist. It is not evidence that they have or haven't existed for eternity. There is no evidence that mass or energy can be created or destroyed.

 

Well, for one thing, I find it humorous that you've now referred twice to the laws of thermodynamics as a defense, of sorts, of evolution… a theory which flies in the face of the laws of thermodynamics. But that aside…

 

You are STILL mixing "proof" with "evidence". That something exists IS "evidence" that it was created EVEN IF it doesn't conclusively PROVE that it was created. Proof is not the same as evidence.

 

TRoutMac

Bend, Oregon

[TRoutMac]

I think that some christians on this site may take a bit of offense at this.

 

Only if they don't understand what I mean by that, specifically. And if they don't, I encourage them to contact me, because after I explain what I mean, they will breathe a sigh of relief.

 

TRoutMac

Bend, Oregon

[Tormod]

That something exists IS "evidence" that it was created EVEN IF it doesn't conclusively PROVE that it was created.

 

No, it is not. And it certainly does not imply a designer.

[Tormod]

Only if they don't understand what I mean by that, specifically. And if they don't, I encourage them to contact me, because after I explain what I mean, they will breathe a sigh of relief.

 

TRoutMac

Bend, Oregon

 

Yes...because you know that you are right, right? Especially since we are discussing religion.

[TRoutMac]

Yes...because you know that you are right, right? Especially since we are discussing religion.

 

From the "Rules":

"Avoid short, witty, off-topic remarks ("hit-and-run posts") in a thread where people are having a serious discussion. This is considered rude and offensive. Use the Watercooler forum for that kind of thing."

 

'Nuff said.

 

TRoutMac

Bend, Oregon