evolution, what would be the reason to have dinosaur´s roaming here to some 160 000 000 years, and then wipe them out, so only birds are left, i would like to have DINO as a pet

Not sure if I'm reading this right, the question is better posed to ID as evolution is a process that acts on what's available, it does not control stellar events (and it's likely that the dinosaurs were wiped out by a collision with a meteor). The "Designer", however, probably would have such control. Were the dinos an experiment gone bad? Did the designer get bored? ID leads inevitably to such questions, evolution does not. These questions, and several others cannot be answered by scientific enquiry (hypothesis, experiments and evidence, theory, etc), so what are they doing in a science class? ID in biology is as valid today as TARDIS engine design is in a physics class.

Nature or Evolution could have provided the design. Is it Intelligent ?? somewhat. Probably not Divine since we don't have wheels for feet but then again we can go up stairs, climb trees and mountains.

Cheers ,

Bill

when it has even one scientific fact, yes then

I am not necessarily embracing the "Anthropic Principal"; but there are many scientific facts that if the parameters, constants,orbital configuration, Outer massive planet for comet protection, forces, distance from sun, moon to stabilize our orbit, tilt and spin, the tides, etc were just a little bit off from where they are --we wouldn't be here to ponder. So you could be correct when you observe that we are the result of a happy accident or an extremely fortuitous set of conditions.

This bears on how many planets in the Galaxy might harbor intelligent life. It appears a long list of conditions would have to be satisfied --sort of a super Drake equation.

Bill

it was absolutely Allah who set all of this up.

THAT's *my* story and *I'm* sticking to it... ;)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

So, basically what I am seeing here is an utter refusal to allow children to be shown different views of the same coin.

You are all saying that " THIS is how it is...this is how you have to think ", rather than let the high schoolers decide for themselves if they think that ID is as ridiculous as you all do. By the time they reach High School, most of those " impressionable " children are not as impressionable as you may think.

Not at all, I simply said the teaching of ID has no place in a biology class. It belongs in theology, alongside creationism, etc. ID is not science it is religion, teach it as such and I have no issue, dress it up as something it's not and then I have an issue. Our children have little enough time in school as it is, what's the point in taking time away from real science to explore theological ideas in a science class?

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

So, basically what I am seeing here is an utter refusal to allow children to be shown different views of the same coin.

You are all saying that " THIS is how it is...this is how you have to think ", rather than let the high schoolers decide for themselves if they think that ID is as ridiculous as you all do. By the time they reach High School, most of those " impressionable " children are not as impressionable as you may think.

Not at all, I simply said the teaching of ID has no place in a biology class. It belongs in theology, alongside creationism, etc. ID is not science it is religion, teach it as such and I have no issue, dress it up as something it's not and then I have an issue. Our children have little enough time in school as it is, what's the point in taking time away from real science to explore theological ideas in a science class?

Uh huh. One problem with that line of thought. They aren't allowed to teach theology classes in public schools. That whole " separation of church and state " thing makes that impossible.

Think about this....

There are thousands upon thousands of research papers, books, videos etc that back up the scientific side of the argument. How many books are there that back up the Intelligent Design theory?? Basically, just one.

How much time could it possibly take to present the Intelligent Design side?? I would be exceptionally surprised if, even given permission to do so, teachers would spend much more than 1 period of class time discussing it.

You make it sound like they would be spending weeks " teaching " it. I simply don't think that is the way it would happen.

---

Air Cold, the blade stops;
from silent stone,
Death is preordained

Calm Chaos Forums : Everyone Welcome

So, basically what I am seeing here is an utter refusal to allow children to be shown different views of the same coin.

You are all saying that " THIS is how it is...this is how you have to think ", rather than let the high schoolers decide for themselves if they think that ID is as ridiculous as you all do. By the time they reach High School, most of those " impressionable " children are not as impressionable as you may think.

Not at all, I simply said the teaching of ID has no place in a biology class. It belongs in theology, alongside creationism, etc. ID is not science it is religion, teach it as such and I have no issue, dress it up as something it's not and then I have an issue. Our children have little enough time in school as it is, what's the point in taking time away from real science to explore theological ideas in a science class?

Uh huh. One problem with that line of thought. They aren't allowed to teach theology classes in public schools. That whole " separation of church and state " thing makes that impossible.

Think about this....

There are thousands upon thousands of research papers, books, videos etc that back up the scientific side of the argument. How many books are there that back up the Intelligent Design theory?? Basically, just one.

How much time could it possibly take to present the Intelligent Design side?? I would be exceptionally surprised if, even given permission to do so, teachers would spend much more than 1 period of class time discussing it.

You make it sound like they would be spending weeks " teaching " it. I simply don't think that is the way it would happen.

If the separation of church and state makes it impossible to teach theology in public schools, then ID has no place in public schools. If you open the door to one theological "theory" in biology, it's only a matter of time before physics classes will have to start teaching creationism alongside the big bang, faith healing in medical school, etc, etc. And why, balance? Then let's have neo-nazis teach 20th century history, after all modern history texts may not show sufficient balance regarding the use of gas chambers.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

It should be recited by standing at attention facing the flag with the right hand over the heart. When not in uniform men should remove any non-religious headdress with their right hand and hold it at the left shoulder, the hand being over the heart. Persons in uniform should remain silent, face the flag, and render the military salute.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pledge_of_Allegiance



.

---

"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss

MY point was that ID doesn't require a Deity (God). The design can come from Evolution, Nature or Chance just as well.

Bill

MY point was that ID doesn't require a Deity (God). The design can come from Evolution, Nature or Chance just as well.

Bill

This makes sense to me.


My point is both should be available and allowed to students if the student wants it.



.

---

"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss

Let's get a grip, here! Biology doesn't talk about God, a species of Galactic Panspermazoids, or any other such red herrings. Biology talks about biology in empirical terms. Biological science doesn't deny or affirm God or Panspermazoids. Biology doesn't care.

Science is empirical. There is no "theory of intelligent design" in any scientific sense because all such notions presuppose, and require by definition, what a physicist might call "directed spooky action at a distance."

It's critical for children to be taught what science is and isn't, and to differentiate between verifiable facts, mere stories, actual theories, rumors, and fairy tales. This law is a step straight into the Dark Ages, when there was no science, only religion and superstition

---

"Good against remotes is one thing. Good against the living, that's something else." (Han Solo)

MY point was that ID doesn't require a Deity (God). The design can come from Evolution, Nature or Chance just as well.

Bill

ID specifically states that the "design" cannot arise from the random mutations of evolution. Evolution does not design in advance, there is no intelligence, and no design in evolution. ID requires a Designer, and if that designer is not a Deity (but some other guiding intelligence) all it does is move the goalposts a little (who/what designed the Designer), it's only a few steps to get back to a Deity, which is exactly what the US Courts have found, "the concept is creationism in disguise.". To suggest ID is not theology is disingenuous, to say the least.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

ID is not science as it presupposes that God did everything. This cannot be proved or disproved as there is no possible test. Therefore it has to be taken on faith. Anything that has to be taken on faith is a religion.

Evolution on the other hand is based on a series of observations in the natural world - all of which can be repeated. It is possible to have a test that disproves evolution, but every such test to date has merely confirmed evolution, or made a minor modification to the theory.

Charles Darwin was very reluctant to publish because his findings went against his religion. However, he was convinced by his own observations. More scientists have followed.

The only controversies among scientists about evolution are around the edges - minor modifications to be tested, not about the core. The controversy is drummed by religious people who are afraid that their religion is being attacked.

We know the results of Evolution, and we know the mechanism in pretty good detail. We don't know all of the steps along the way for every plant, animal, protozoa and fungus, but the details are being worked out (slowly).

---

BOINC WIKI

Evolution on the other hand is based on a series of observations in the natural world

It would seem to me that Intelligent Design would be based on a series of observations in the natural world too...

The controversy is drummed by religious people who are afraid that their religion is being attacked.

Evolution nor Intelligent Design have anything to do with my religion... Just thought I'd point that out... ;)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

There are arguments on both sides of this coin but the real question is if someone should be shielded from or exposed to one or the other/both. I say everyone should be exposed to both. Religion should also be in the curriculum. Not just one religion but all of them. It would sure cut down on the BS misunderstandings that have torn our species apart since the beginning of recorded history, and beyond.

We all know the arguments by heart:

For

Against

Neutral


Bottom line for me:

Until one is proven wrong, present both.

---

"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss

MY point was that ID doesn't require a Deity (God). The design can come from Evolution, Nature or Chance just as well.

Bill

ID specifically states that the "design" cannot arise from the random mutations of evolution. Evolution does not design in advance, there is no intelligence, and no design in evolution. ID requires a Designer, and if that designer is not a Deity (but some other guiding intelligence) all it does is move the goalposts a little (who/what designed the Designer), it's only a few steps to get back to a Deity, which is exactly what the US Courts have found, "the concept is creationism in disguise.". To suggest ID is not theology is disingenuous, to say the least.

Are the dunes and ripples in the sand not a design--Who is the designer--it is the wind. perhaps you are right since there is no intelligence in the wind only forces which created the wind.

Regards,

Bill

Religion should also be in the curriculum. Not just one religion but all of them.

That's bound to ruffle a few feathers... ;)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

Religion should also be in the curriculum. Not just one religion but all of them.

That's bound to ruffle a few feathers... ;)

Those feathers have needed plucking for some time now.

;)


.

---

"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss

Evolution on the other hand is based on a series of observations in the natural world

It would seem to me that Intelligent Design would be based on a series of observations in the natural world too...

No, it is an attempt to force fit the observations into a religion.

The controversy is drummed by religious people who are afraid that their religion is being attacked.

Evolution nor Intelligent Design have anything to do with my religion... Just thought I'd point that out... ;)

Ah. Just playing devils advocate, I see.

---

BOINC WIKI

Religion should also be in the curriculum. Not just one religion but all of them.

That's bound to ruffle a few feathers... ;)

Those feathers have needed plucking for some time now.

;)


.

A comparative religion class giving a balanced view of all of the religions would be good (even a requirement), but care must be given to make certain that no religion is promoted.

---

BOINC WIKI

Religion should also be in the curriculum. Not just one religion but all of them.

That's bound to ruffle a few feathers... ;)

Those feathers have needed plucking for some time now.

;)


.

A comparative religion class giving a balanced view of all of the religions would be good (even a requirement), but care must be given to make certain that no religion is promoted.

Agreed,

I wonder how long it will be before entire courses are on DVD with teachers in the wings for question time. Finger ever on the pause button.

:)


.

---

"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss