11-01-2005 07:17									#31
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: INTELLIGENT DESIGN IS NOT SCIENCE. INTELLIGENT DESIGN IS NOT BIOLOGY. INTELLIGENT DESIGN IS NOT AN ACCEPTED SCIENTIFIC THEORY.

	11-01-2005 07:40									#32
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

This fear factor is getting hilarious among people with a supposedly open scientific mind. This is the same mindset that ridiculed and despised Darwin when he proposed a new idea not yet accepted fully by "the scientific community". Now the shoe is on the other foot and these closed minded ideologues pretend that anything that threatens their world view is not scientific. ID (although the term is widely misused) has nothing to do with creationism. If these people were really concerned about the corruption of science they would stop misusing terms in order to mislead. Maybe they should burn all books on ID so they can protect the students from other interpretations of the evidence that points to design as opposed to blind materialism. Yeah, good science -- disallow the revelation of facts and different interpretations of evidence that oppose the main stream opinion. What a way to advance science....

	11-01-2005 07:46									#33
	Remove this text

Lincoln, please stop trying to misrepresent the nonfundimentalist majority. Evolution has scientific evidence backing it up while creationism has nothing, zero, zip, zylch, nada. Opposition to teaching creationism in science classes has nothing to do with fear instead it has to do with the desire to teach children sound science and the methods behind it.

But you already knew even if you will not admite it. Instead, you and a few others here are trying to confuse the issue in an attempt to hide the fact that there is no scientific evidence for creationism thus it does not belong in a science class. If you wish to teach your children nonsense then feel free to do so but I draw the line when you try to teach my children this rubbish.

	11-01-2005 07:56									#34
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

I guess you didn't read my post. Oh well...

	11-01-2005 07:59									#35
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

I would have thought "intelligent design" is not in conflict with evolution......

	11-01-2005 08:02									#36
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

Many ID proponants do in fact believe in evolution. Here is a brief definition:

The theory of intelligent design (ID) holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection. ID is thus a scientific disagreement with the core claim of evolutionary theory that the apparent design of living systems is an illusion...

	11-01-2005 08:02									#37
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by Lincoln I guess you didn't read my post. Oh well...

oh he read it... Oerdin just didn't believe any of your babbling bullshit.

	11-01-2005 08:04									#38
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by Kuciwalker Sig material

I already have the original. More to the point as well.

	11-01-2005 08:05									#39
	Inflate your Upload Space

But here's the crucial part, Lincoln:

There is no proof for "Intelligent Design".

Science demands proof.

Ergo, "Intelligent Design" is not science.

	11-01-2005 08:06									#40
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Lincoln Many ID proponants do in fact believe in evolution. Here is a brief definition: The theory of intelligent design (ID) holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection. ID is thus a scientific disagreement with the core claim of evolutionary theory that the apparent design of living systems is an illusion...

Remove the bolded text and I agree with you completely.

	11-01-2005 08:07									#41
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by Lincoln Many ID proponants do in fact believe in evolution. Here is a brief definition: The theory of intelligent design (ID) holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection. ID is thus a scientific disagreement with the core claim of evolutionary theory that the apparent design of living systems is an illusion...

But that isn't the central claim of evolution - Darwin was a protestant minister and a very religious man. He felt he was revealing the hand of God.

	11-01-2005 08:08									#42
	Full PM-box? Change here!

Some scientists refuse to follow an"illusion"... Richard Dawkins for example admits that there is apparent design in life but he calls it an illusion, but without knowing the origin of life to begin with one can not state that natural selection is not directed by the same of source of life. ID simply states that the implication of design is NOT an illusion. Why should we be forced to follow illusions in the name of science?

	11-01-2005 08:11									#43
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

Because it's not an illusion. ID claiming that it is doesn't make it so, unless you subscribe to circular logic...

	11-01-2005 08:12									#44
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

Because, oh Great Obtuse One, there is no proof of design. Zero. Nada. **** all.

It is therefore not a scientific theory, and it does not belong in a science course.

You want to teach it in philosophy or religion class, fine. But it is not science.

	11-01-2005 08:12									#45
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

Actually science demands EVIDENCE. There is plenty of it for design. And yes Darwin was a theist (at least initially). His theory was not meant to challange intelligent design of life in its origin.

	11-01-2005 08:12									#46
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by Lincoln but without knowing the origin of life to begin with one can not state that natural selection is not directed by the same of source of life.

Which is why evolution is a theory. No credible scientist will call it a law. Plz pay attention.

	11-01-2005 08:13									#47
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Kindly present scientific evidence of design.

I'm breathless with anticipation.

	11-01-2005 08:14									#48
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Lincoln Some scientists refuse to follow an"illusion"... Richard Dawkins for example admits that there is apparent design in life but he calls it an illusion, but without knowing the origin of life to begin with one can not state that natural selection is not directed by the same of source of life. ID simply states that the implication of design is NOT an illusion. Why should we be forced to follow illusions in the name of science?

I think the mainstream Christian view would be that it was God who created the conditions for life and set the forces of evolution in progress.

	11-01-2005 08:14									#49
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

Sucj fear among great minds... History repeats itself I suppose. And it was Richard Dawkins who said the apparent design in nature was an illusion not me.

	11-01-2005 08:14									#50
	Get a bigger avatar today!

Maybe we should push for a law that requires microbiology to be discussed in all bible study courses?

	11-01-2005 08:15									#51
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

Fear? I don't fear intelligent design.

I simply recognize it as philosophy and theology--not science.


EDIT: that's some good thinking, Theben.

	11-01-2005 08:16									#52
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Guynemer Kindly present scientific evidence of design. I'm breathless with anticipation.

Punch in "intelligent design" on google and get back to me. Or read my book.

	11-01-2005 08:17									#53
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Lincoln Sucj fear among great minds... History repeats itself I suppose. And it was Richard Dawkins who said the apparent design in nature was an illusion not me.

OH NOES!!1!11 One person said something and evolution is totally discredited!! Liek we r pwneD!!1

My fear, such as it is, is that the after a few years the nation will be swarming with blithering idiots who couldn't tell the scientific method from their grocery list.

	11-01-2005 08:22									#55
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by Alexander's Horse I think the mainstream Christian view would be that it was God who created the conditions for life and set the forces of evolution in progress.

ID is generally about origins. ID does not oppose the process of evolution but it questions the origin of some species without direction somewhere along the line. I know questioning is not scientific anymore but they do it anyway.

	11-01-2005 08:24									#56
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

Just when this was getting fun I have to go to bed. My sweety is waiting...

	11-01-2005 08:24									#57
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

some species being humans I imagine....

	11-01-2005 08:30									#58
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Objectivity results from the use of the scientific method without philosophic or religious assumptions in seeking answers to the question: Where do we come from?

The mission statement, so to speak.

quote: The theory of intelligent design (ID) holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection.

Emphasis added, which pretty much refutes any claim to being able to 'coincide with' evolution.

quote: ID proponents believe science should be conducted objectively, without regard to the implications of its findings. This is particularly necessary in origins science because of its historical (and thus very subjective) nature, and because it is a science that unavoidably impacts religion

So they must look at it objectively but admit it's very subjective in nature?

They must use the scientific method w/o religious assumptions but it's a science that "unavoidably impacts religion"?

Should I bother to keep reading? I haven't read past the 1st page.

	11-01-2005 08:32									#59
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

This is why Intelligent Design should not be taught in a science class.

People say that Intelligent Design is not necessarily creationism, not necessarily god. The way I look at it, there are two possible sources of intelligence in design.

Aliens.

or

Gods.

If aliens, the aliens need a source, which can either be explained by more intelligent design, or evolution. If more intelligent design, we go back a step and repeat.

If gods, then we are dealing with theology and not science, so it shouldn't be taught in science class.

Last edited by Lorizael on 11-01-2005 at 08:40

	11-01-2005 08:37									#60
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

I agree that intelligent design doesn't really belong in the science class.

That's because it is not scientifically provable.

But science and the sciencific method is not very good at the "why" or "who" questions. They belong to other disciplines.