Intelligent design, has no scientific basis in fact, and therefore should be treated with the disdain that it deserves.
Load of bollocks !!!, and thats being polite ! :shock:
Join the most popular community of UK swingers now
Login
Intelligent Design... Again!
last reply
90 replies
2.5k views
8 watchers
0 likes
Quote by Mister_Discreet
A quick bit of background information for those not aware of the 'intelligent design' debacle:
In America, teaching of religion in schools is forbidden.
Surely this violates Religious Freedom Rights? Having said that I know that this varies from state to state so probably irrelevant.
I do believe that Intelligent Design ... ie religion shoudl be taught however, there are so many religions now and so how do you determine which should be taught and what shouldn't?
Personally I'm on the God started the earth with the big bang, created dinosaurs to "maintain" the vegetation and other species, killed them all off to populate the earth and evolution took over, guided by him.
Cx
Quote by marmalaid
How can it be fair to dismiss what so many people believe as fact in preferance for what many other people see as fact. Darwinsim, atheism and agnosticism are as much a belief as creationism, what's your belief and label from the above? Why should your belief be taught and not mine? If that's not fundamentalism what is?
We are NOT talking about beliefs here. You can't teach beliefs in American schools, it's (rightly or wrongly) against their law. We are talking about scientific theories, which are being taught in science lessons.
FSM and Evolution are theories which fit the facts, and Intelligent design is not. Applying scientific rigour to theories and disregarding theories that do not fit the facts is fundamental to understanding science, otherwise schools would be teaching phologiston, the 4 greek elements and witchcraft in science lessons.
Quote by Calista
In America, teaching of religion in schools is forbidden.
Surely this violates Religious Freedom Rights?
No, it protects Religious Freedom Rights. If a school was to teaching that one religion is correct, then that violates the 'rights' of all the other religions to say they are correct.
Quote by Mister_Discreet
How can it be fair to dismiss what so many people believe as fact in preferance for what many other people see as fact. Darwinsim, atheism and agnosticism are as much a belief as creationism, what's your belief and label from the above? Why should your belief be taught and not mine? If that's not fundamentalism what is?
We are NOT talking about beliefs here. You can't teach beliefs in American schools, it's (rightly or wrongly) against their law. We are talking about scientific theories, which are being taught in science lessons.
FSM and Evolution are theories which fit the facts, and Intelligent design is not. Applying scientific rigour to theories and disregarding theories that do not fit the facts is fundamental to understanding science, otherwise schools would be teaching phologiston, the 4 greek elements and witchcraft in science lessons.
From what i understand of it, basically its the American Christian Right trying to extend a growing stranglehold in the politics of America into its schools by trying to claim that Intelligent Design is a legitimate theory.
Now, quite clearly, its not a legitimate "theory" - even the most religious of people must know that. It isn't based on any factual evidence, and thats what a mortal being must have to create a theory or an evaluation. If their is no factual evidence, then obviously they're can be no legitimate reason for spreading an "idea" so wide across a generation such as the American youth. The FSM actually makes more sense than ID because it at least makes some attempt at generating evidence, whilst ID is based on blind faith.
If blind faith is your thing, then that fine - but you should be taught that blind faith is correct and the only way. Studying Darwinism is the study of one mans ideas that are backed up by evidence and collaborative agreement by many others. ID lacks evidence.
Mod
Quote by Tra-n-Lee
Well, how about we have it on a level playing field and we Mod at the level of the posters post - is that fair? That way I can see a post, play dumb, ban them and tell them it was for anything I care to make up. Sounds about right? And no, that isn't how we do it now, but I might change my mind very shortly.
What's the odds on seeing an apology now, Mal?
I'll give 10-1 against
Already apologised in PM about half an hour ago for the "over-zealous" remark, and stated i was not criticising moderation on the boards, and that wires simply got crossed... :roll:#
From: Tra-n-Lee
To: Mal
Posted: Sat Nov 26, 2005 6:11 pm
Subject: Oh well!
lol - crossed wires there! Apologies anyway; the original post made sense in my head and people PM'ed me asking why it had been locked while they were trying to reply so i got very confused!
Anyway, no agitation meant - just confusion.
Cheers,
Lee
The apology was received as I was making my post, however, you then quite obviously went on a search for another topic to justify your original post, so hardly a heartfelt apology if you bothered to find that other post.
Quote by Mal
Well, how about we have it on a level playing field and we Mod at the level of the posters post - is that fair? That way I can see a post, play dumb, ban them and tell them it was for anything I care to make up. Sounds about right? And no, that isn't how we do it now, but I might change my mind very shortly.
What's the odds on seeing an apology now, Mal?
I'll give 10-1 against
Already apologised in PM about half an hour ago for the "over-zealous" remark, and stated i was not criticising moderation on the boards, and that wires simply got crossed... :roll:#
From: Tra-n-Lee
To: Mal
Posted: Sat Nov 26, 2005 6:11 pm
Subject: Oh well!
lol - crossed wires there! Apologies anyway; the original post made sense in my head and people PM'ed me asking why it had been locked while they were trying to reply so i got very confused!
Anyway, no agitation meant - just confusion.
Cheers,
Lee
The apology was received as I was making my post, however, you then quite obviously went on a search for another topic to justify your original post, so hardly a heartfelt apology if you bothered to find that other post.
I went on only because it seems you ignored the apology and then tried to bait me with a post after the apology was given, but if it was recieved during the post then thats fine but you can't blame me for being ever so slightly annoyed after, when clarifying things by PM, you then continued the argument!
But as you didn't, then everything afterwards is retracted lol.
Again, crossed wires!
Quote by The Muttleys
Intelligent design, has no scientific basis in fact, and therefore should be treated with the disdain that it deserves.
Load of bollocks !!!, and thats being polite ! :shock:
You may believe that you have a lovely wife, incidentally I agree, but, does it have any basis in demonstrable and purely scientific fact, or is it a "Load of bollocks" just because it's a belief?
Hugs to the lovely Mrs M.
Quote by Mister_Discreet
How can it be fair to dismiss what so many people believe as fact in preferance for what many other people see as fact. Darwinsim, atheism and agnosticism are as much a belief as creationism, what's your belief and label from the above? Why should your belief be taught and not mine? If that's not fundamentalism what is?
We are NOT talking about beliefs here. You can't teach beliefs in American schools, it's (rightly or wrongly) against their law. We are talking about scientific theories, which are being taught in science lessons.
FSM and Evolution are theories which fit the facts, and Intelligent design is not. Applying scientific rigour to theories and disregarding theories that do not fit the facts is fundamental to understanding science, otherwise schools would be teaching phologiston, the 4 greek elements and witchcraft in science lessons.
Ok, what is a scientist? Am I one because I've done a few experiments in my time?
What's a theory? Isn't it a belief? Darwin stated his theory of evolution, that developed into a conviction where those beliefs became fact, it's not been proven, he just thought it was right he was persuasive enough to have people believe him.
Christ did the same, he had the certainty of his convictions and was persuasive enough to have people believe him and follow him. Where's the difference on an interlectual level?
You said that Evolution is a thoery that fits the fact, my belief is that God creating the Earth, the seas, the skys, day and night, animals and man fits the facts just as well. The beliefs that I have have been about for far longer, how can that fact alone be enough to have them removed from the curriculum?
Oh, and we are talking about beliefs here, that was the original topic. Besides, what is Darwinism if not a belief? It's certainly not a fact.
Chris
Quote by Mister_Discreet
In America, teaching of religion in schools is forbidden.
Surely this violates Religious Freedom Rights?
No, it protects Religious Freedom Rights. If a school was to teaching that one religion is correct, then that violates the 'rights' of all the other religions to say they are correct.
I don't know about the American system, I don't even know about the British educational system, I only know about when I was at school. RE was taught where the rudiments of the major religions were taught. Darwinism wasn't part of that, maybe it should have been.
What ever happened to the old theory that we (man, as a species that is) are simply a petrie dish experiment in God's great labratory. Every now an then he gets to examine the experiment, decides that it's all not quite going according to plan, then throws in a catylist or 2 as you do - low and behold another Da Vinci, Pasteur, Einstein, or Hitler, Stalin, Chairman Mao (please, no offence - these are just examples) and the experiment takes flight and so it goes on. How simple is all that??
Quote by Tra-n-Lee
Now, quite clearly, its not a legitimate "theory" - even the most religious of people must know that. It isn't based on any factual evidence, and thats what a mortal being must have to create a theory or an evaluation. If their is no factual evidence, then obviously they're can be no legitimate reason for spreading an "idea" so wide across a generation such as the American youth. The FSM actually makes more sense than ID because it at least makes some attempt at generating evidence, whilst ID is based on blind faith.
If blind faith is your thing, then that fine - but you should be taught that blind faith is correct and the only way. Studying Darwinism is the study of one mans ideas that are backed up by evidence and collaborative agreement by many others. ID lacks evidence.
I don't want to be seen as a zealot here, but anyway, I'll answer your equally zealous assertions...
Where's the proof of Darwinism? There's at least as much 'proof' of Devine design as there is of evolution. What's the phrase, I can't remember it, something like corelation does not equal causation.
Evolution: Man came from the apes because??? we look fairly similar, we share 98% of our DNA.
Creationism: We share 40% of our DNA with bananas, if we came from apes then why are pigs more genetically similar? Why are pigs used to grow organs and not primates?
You talk of evidence and agreement, evidence only means something has happened, it does not say what caused it. What you say was caused by natural selection or evolution, I could say was caused by God's great plan. Agreement? What does that mean? People agreed that the Earth was flat, didn't make it right, it was just right in their eyes until it was disproven. I believe that Darwinism is the same, it fits your evidence and so it must be true. In time it may be disproven, but I don't believe that Darwinism will ever be proved.
Sex God
OK so what is this thread all about? It is obviously getting itself into dangerous territory (mod/member disagreements aside) It ultimately is trying to talk about religion (and what did my dear old long departed da' say....... never argue politics or religion son)
From what I have read in here it is about what the U.S. has decided over many years is the correct (possibly read PC here) way to deal with a multi-ethnic society.
The U.S. decided that to teach beliefs was wrong, and now the religious (probably read christian) right are now hitting back with ID.
With the current reaction to the ID thing it is possible that our U.S. cousins are about to find out that perhaps a better route to take is one of balance and moderation.
I personally believe that our children at an early age should be taught the fundamentals of scientific belief (including Darwin theory) as well as the fundamentals of all the "common" religions (which would include christianity, Islam, Hindu, Budism to name but a few) This happened when I was at school and I finished school in 1970 FFS..........
It is then down to the individual to work through their own beliefs..... ultimately this is what we try to do in the U.K (and no we don't always get it right) so why can't others (i.e. the U.S.) do the same?
M
From what I have read in here it is about what the U.S. has decided over many years is the correct (possibly read PC here) way to deal with a multi-ethnic society.
The U.S. decided that to teach beliefs was wrong, and now the religious (probably read christian) right are now hitting back with ID.
With the current reaction to the ID thing it is possible that our U.S. cousins are about to find out that perhaps a better route to take is one of balance and moderation.
I personally believe that our children at an early age should be taught the fundamentals of scientific belief (including Darwin theory) as well as the fundamentals of all the "common" religions (which would include christianity, Islam, Hindu, Budism to name but a few) This happened when I was at school and I finished school in 1970 FFS..........
It is then down to the individual to work through their own beliefs..... ultimately this is what we try to do in the U.K (and no we don't always get it right) so why can't others (i.e. the U.S.) do the same?
M
Quote by Him'nHer
From what I have read in here it is about what the U.S. has decided over many years is the correct (possibly read PC here) way to deal with a multi-ethnic society.
The U.S. decided that to teach beliefs was wrong, and now the religious (probably read christian) right are now hitting back with ID.
Be interesting to know how many of the parents who object actually attend church and truely practice their faith, as opposed to being those who turn up, repent and carry on the same next week!
C x
Quote by Tra-n-Lee
Right i'm going to try again because some people actually understood what i meant but some over-zealous Mod locked it before the discussion began!
Basically, in America particularly but worldwide also, the religious Right have coined a phrase called "Intelligent Design", which advocates the "Garden of Eden" bible story of creating and evolution and dismisses the Big Bang/Darwin more scientific explanations of human progression.
Whilst i couldn't be bother to have an opinion either way because basically no one will ever know the answer, my point was thank God (no pun intended) i'm not American - our friends from across the Atlantic tend to get their little selves very worked up over things like this - bless lol.
My question is - to all us Brits; what do we make of this "phenomenon" of Intelligent Design.
And for those who don't know what i'm going on about and think its obscure, its been on the news for the past 6 months!!!
Lee x
Sounds a bit above my intellect for tonight.............I'll try again tomorrow when Captain Morgans' gone home :lol: :lol:
Sex God
Quote by Calista
Be interesting to know how many of the parents who object actually attend church and truely practice their faith, as opposed to being those who turn up, repent and carry on the same next week!
C x
Couldn't agree more Calista.............. which frankly is one reason why I personally am not religious, and try very hard (although I've screwed up tonite) not to get involved in religious discussion, but at the same time I respect peoples right to believe in something, and if that "something" happens to cut to the core of human psyche as religion does, then I don't see why it shouldn't be taught in school
Quote by Him'nHer
OK so what is this thread all about? It is obviously getting itself into dangerous territory (mod/member disagreements aside) It ultimately is trying to talk about religion (and what did my dear old long departed da' say....... never argue politics or religion son)
But we are a community that respects one another and embraces our differences, we are adult enough to discuss this. It's not dangerous, just helps us see new ways of looking at the world, and that is surely good.
Quote by Him'nHer
I personally believe that our children at an early age should be taught the fundamentals of scientific belief (including Darwin theory) as well as the fundamentals of all the "common" religions (which would include christianity, Islam, Hindu, Budism to name but a few) This happened when I was at school and I finished school in 1970 FFS..........
I agree, almost...
Why should your belief, Darwinism, be give more credance than my belief, Creationism?
Quote by Calista
Be interesting to know how many of the parents who object actually attend church and truely practice their faith, as opposed to being those who turn up, repent and carry on the same next week!
C x
What's church got to do with it, church is where people meet in His name, prayer can be done at any time in any place, it'd be interesting to see how many people have called for Him when in bed, I know I've heard one or two of you :twisted:
Sex God
Quote by marmalaid
OK so what is this thread all about? It is obviously getting itself into dangerous territory (mod/member disagreements aside) It ultimately is trying to talk about religion (and what did my dear old long departed da' say....... never argue politics or religion son)
But we are a community that respects one another and embraces our differences, we are adult enough to discuss this. It's not dangerous, just helps us see new ways of looking at the world, and that is surely good.
Quote by Him'nHer
I personally believe that our children at an early age should be taught the fundamentals of scientific belief (including Darwin theory) as well as the fundamentals of all the "common" religions (which would include christianity, Islam, Hindu, Budism to name but a few) This happened when I was at school and I finished school in 1970 FFS..........
I agree, almost...
Why should your belief, Darwinism, be give more credance than my belief, Creationism?
Marmalaid If you read what I posted in response to Calista, you will see that I DO NOT believe that MY personal beliefs are any more or less important than anyone elses. I have stated that I do not believe in religion. I DO NOT see anywhere that I have written that I believe in Darwins theories. All I have stated is that I am not religious.
Putting it simply what I believe in is personal to me......... I respect that others have different beliefs, and that is personal to them. I DO STRONGLY BELIEVE IN MODERATION. It's ok to me that children (mine included) get taught fundamental Darwin theory as well as fundamental grounding in all the worlds major religions............ or do you think that this is wrong?
Quote by marmalaid
Be interesting to know how many of the parents who object actually attend church and truely practice their faith, as opposed to being those who turn up, repent and carry on the same next week!
C x
What's church got to do with it, church is where people meet in His name, prayer can be done at any time in any place, it'd be interesting to see how many people have called for Him when in bed, I know I've heard one or two of you :twisted:
ahh but never me ............................ yet ;)C x
Quote by Him'nHer
Marmalaid If you read what I posted in response to Calista, you will see that I DO NOT believe that MY personal beliefs are any more or less important than anyone elses. I have stated that I do not believe in religion. I DO NOT see anywhere that I have written that I believe in Darwins theories. All I have stated is that I am not religious.
Sorry, that's not the way I meant it to sound. I wasn't being personal, but what you did say was that Darwinism should be given 'sciences' statues, whereas creationism should be left to religious studies.
Quote by Him'nHer
Putting it simply what I believe in is personal to me......... I respect that others have different beliefs, and that is personal to them. I DO STRONGLY BELIEVE IN MODERATION. It's ok to me that children (mine included) get taught fundamental Darwin theory as well as fundamental grounding in all the worlds major religions............ or do you think that this is wrong?
Mal will be pleased
Again, I agree, but Darwinism should be given the factual appearance that being part of the science curriculum gives to it.
Quote by Calista
Be interesting to know how many of the parents who object actually attend church and truely practice their faith, as opposed to being those who turn up, repent and carry on the same next week!
C x
What's church got to do with it, church is where people meet in His name, prayer can be done at any time in any place, it'd be interesting to see how many people have called for Him when in bed, I know I've heard one or two of you :twisted:
ahh but never me ............................ yet ;)C x
Oooh, you tease.
Got to go in a min though...
Quote by marmalaid
Be interesting to know how many of the parents who object actually attend church and truely practice their faith, as opposed to being those who turn up, repent and carry on the same next week!
C x
What's church got to do with it, church is where people meet in His name, prayer can be done at any time in any place, it'd be interesting to see how many people have called for Him when in bed, I know I've heard one or two of you :twisted:
ahh but never me ............................ yet ;)C x
Oooh, you tease.
Go to go in a min though...
:doh:
just my luck!
C x
Well......................................i still think its a load of bollocks. :shock:
This isnt a dangerous thread, its just a coagulation of opinion, like the opinion of Marmalade about Mrs M, and whether she actually is scientifically based in fact lol.
Do Marms and me fall out....no, we simply try to figure out what the feck the other is on about, draw a conclusion, and say awwwww sod it!!.
In the meantime, we have a laugh along the way and in some strange way, put our own opinions over to the audience of others who have thier own opinions as well.
Lets not treat any thread as dangerous, lets instead have healthy debate on a subject, whatever it may be, and draw our own conclusions at the end of the debate.
My conclusion is as above, and also that Mrs M has no scientific basis in fact, but she is lovely, and Marms agrees. debate had, conclusions drawn.....simple.
This isnt a dangerous thread, its just a coagulation of opinion, like the opinion of Marmalade about Mrs M, and whether she actually is scientifically based in fact lol.
Do Marms and me fall out....no, we simply try to figure out what the feck the other is on about, draw a conclusion, and say awwwww sod it!!.
In the meantime, we have a laugh along the way and in some strange way, put our own opinions over to the audience of others who have thier own opinions as well.
Lets not treat any thread as dangerous, lets instead have healthy debate on a subject, whatever it may be, and draw our own conclusions at the end of the debate.
My conclusion is as above, and also that Mrs M has no scientific basis in fact, but she is lovely, and Marms agrees. debate had, conclusions drawn.....simple.
