"Intelligent Design" & Public Schools

“Tilt, your assumption that the natural world is "natural" is built on faith also.

There is no settled science on the origin of all that is and how it came to this.

We as humans have set up science and the scientific method as pure from outside influence (culture, religion etc...) as possible.

The gaps in knowledge are greater than the known facts and are filled in with theory and conjecture.

It is a leap of faith to believe all of the universe is "natural" in it's existence as much as it is a leap of faith to believe it was designed.

There is no settled science on the subject.”

“It's obvious to anyone and everyone that you simply want to insinuate your religion into public schools however you can. �Indoctrinating others into your club is part of the mission.

But not other peoples' children. � Sorry, no.”

“Ron fits right in here, doesn't he?

:D”

“"It's obvious to anyone and everyone that you simply want to insinuate your religion into public schools however you can�"

Go back and re-read my posts, where did you get that?

I would like to see our education system privatized with local government oversight to maintain standards.

Unlike most I have no desire to use the coercive power of the government to instill my world view/philosophy into the nations youth. That is the role of parents.”

“Save it for your church group.”

“It is a leap of faith to believe all of the universe is "natural" in it's existence as much as it is a leap of faith to believe it was designed. - chicagoLandRon

Okay, but that's a personal issue regarding individual choice of belief. It has no bearing on "science". The GODDIDIT/DESIGNERDIDIT concept is nothing more than a roadblock to scientific investigation. It is entirely outside the purview of science.”

“Ad ignorantiam The argument from ignorance basically states that a specific belief is true because we don't know that it isn't true.”

“"It is entirely outside the purview of science"

Science speaks to areas outside it purview when it lays out a world view of reality that is based primarily on theory and conjecture.

From your world view you may see belief in a creator as a roadblock but that is subjective.

Good thing you happened to stumble in here and save Tilt. He was down to empty rhetoric and blustering. He insinuates that I need my buddies to speak boldly, he better look in the mirror, lol ;)
last edited: 11/19/07 1:50:28 PM”

“"The argument from ignorance basically states that a specific belief is true because we don't know that it isn't true"

It works both ways Phaedrus.

The argument that all things are part of a natural process and not designed and implemented by a designer is predicated on ID guys not being able to prove you wrong. There are no facts on the ground that prove everything is the result of natural processes. We assume it as part of our scientific doctrine/dogma.”

“Science speaks to areas outside it purview when it lays out a world view of reality that is based primarily on theory and conjecture.

Actually, no, that is entirely WNL for science. Science *is* theory, and science in part progresses through conjecture.”

“"Actually, no, that is entirely WNL for science. Science *is* theory, and science in part progresses through conjecture."

Many take the certitude we have on some specifics and extrapolate that out to speak with authority on issues that have not been settled.”

“Excuse me fellers, I gotta go wind my cuckoo clock.”

“It works both ways Phaedrus.

The argument that all things are part of a natural process and not designed and implemented by a designer is predicated on ID guys not being able to prove you wrong. There are no facts on the ground that prove everything is the result of natural processes. We assume it as part of our scientific doctrine/dogma.”
ChicagolandRon
11:49:54 AM
11/19/07

No, the argument for a naturalistic explanation is that there is evidence FOR it.”

““Okay, Sarge, glad to see that you're still confused.

Care to address the issue?”
Phaedrus

That is precisely the issue. The argument you and others against teaching ID in public schools is you claim it's religion, or religious, or something with "religion" attached to it. It's the other way around. Many religions believe in ID. Many religions DEPEND on ID, but Id does NOT depend on religion. It's independent of religion. So the argument that it is religion, not science, and therefore cannot be in schools is wrong. It's no more religion than drinking wine out of a shot glass is religion, and it's no less science than black holes are science.”

“Magic 8-Ball says:

"Reply Hazy ---- Try Again Later.”

“One needs to look beyond nothing other than the above to understand why language is a virus in humans that makes them think their own separate kingdoms in which they rein as god requires careful attention when the handle is pulled and the lid is gently closed down on the seat.,,,.....,;;;;::"'"(put these where you like)????”

“Sarge, it would appear that the supreme court and, well, pretty much everyone else sees creationism as a religious belief.

Have you considered therapy?”

“And one more because I'm bored:

”

“Sarge, it would appear that the supreme court and, well, pretty much everyone else sees creationism as a religious belief.

You're not getting something very fundamental here Phaedrus. I have said, creationism is a component of many religions. That's irrelevant though to the discussion - as I said, because, for example, something like "saying I like you" is a component of many religions as well, but that behavior is NOT a religion, and is NOT banned in public schools, nor is anyone saying it should be.

It's a "belief". Not a "religion". This isn't a difficult concept to grasp.”

“Yeah, it's pretty simple twisted logic, Phaedrus. What are you, ignorant?”

“Mutt, do you have an actual argument against the fact that "creationism" is a "belief", not a "religion", or are you just resorting to liberal tactics now for debate?”

“Did I call you an idiot, sarge? That would be "liberal tactics" in debate, as exemplified by our very own wannabe east coast liberal elitist, Tilt.”

“Ok, no relevant response. No problem.”

“None needed. Phaedrus already handed you your ass.”

“Like I said. No actual argument. Phaedrus did nothing of the sort. Creationsim is no more a religion than meditation or drinking wine. It's a belief that is held by many religious people, but so is the belief that the earth revolves around the sun. Should that be banned too?”

“Yes, actually he did.”

“Once again. All he did was say that other people believe what he believes. That is making an argument how? Like I said, you're debating like a liberal now.”

“Banned?!? Who is banning Creationism?”

“Did you read the thread title?”

“I think everyone has generally said that theories like creationism and its barely disguised analog Intelligent Design can and should be taught in Comparative Religions.”

“Hey Sarge, if you want to discuss something seriously, how about answering my previous question about ID predictions and empirical evidence? I'd like to know how you address that.”

“Actually ... no. The argument being one of "separation of church and state" (even though that is not in the consititutional)”

“Is the State anymore realistic than the church?”

“�Hey Sarge, if you want to discuss something seriously, how about answering my previous question about ID predictions and empirical evidence? I'd like to know how you address that.�

Put the question here and I'll answer it. I don't know what question you're talking about.”

“Hay Marge, what about when Clinton?”

“
Inherit The Wind (1960)

Tonight at 8:00 EST on Turner Classic Movies

More.”

“LOL...

http://www.milkandcookies.com/link/81909/detail/”

“You ever wonder how scientists get a concensus?

The kick out any scientist with a different view than theirs. What's left? A concensus.

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=/Culture/archive/200712/CUL20071205a.html”

“Thanks for the chuckle.”

“Don't chuckle at my sweatheart Ann.”

“It's funny because it's true.”

“I can't give the article much credibility if they try to portray "rainmaking" - bringing in funding as irrelevant to tenure. Bringing home the bacon is big in Universities. While bringing in grants may not be a pre-condition for tenure it is huge in tenure decisions. It's ridiculous to call that "grasping at straws."

Time will tell what really went on.

I know of one tenure case where a prof. got tenure on the basis after going to court to prove the department was conspiring against her and discussing "how can we keep this crazy nasty b---ch out?" Of course it turned out she was what they said.

So, it could be a case of people having such hostility to his attachment to ID that they drove out an otherwise worthy faculty member. Or it could be that his contributions to the intellectual climate at the university were "intellectually vacuous" and fit for "idiots" and "religious nutcases."”

“PedXing is right in this case. I took graduate courses and taught at Iowa State years ago. Knowing the faculty culture, this story doesn't surprise me in the least.

In terms of research universities, Iowa State is kind of the basement broomcloset of the Ivory Tower, but they have a BIG ego. I mean BIG. It somewhat comical to watch the faculty strut about like they're at the top of their profession (some were, most weren't), but that ultimately turned me completely off of the university. Pedxing is right in that grant money is HUGE at that university. The prestige awarded to faculty that bring in grant money is no small thing and is a big factor in tenure. Iowa State wants to be part of the Big League, and they're out to prove it to the world.

I'm sure the faculty are just as petty and backbiting as the article makes them out to be (that was my experience), but I also don't doubt for a second that they consider lack of grant money a good cause for denying tenure.”

“Wouldn't that be a hoot ----”

“Wouldn't that be a hoot --

I think it would be safe to say that most churches don't teach anything that contradicts evolution. Most avoid the subject like the plague or have a theology that calls evolution Gods vehicle of "creation".

Not necessarily what I subscribe to but it should be pointed out.

You monkeys can believe you are the result of chaos plus long stretches of time but I don't have the faith to believe such an improbability.”

“Oh Boy another IDer.”

“ I don't have the faith to believe such an improbability.

i agree that it is highly improbable. so improbable that this may be the only planet that in all the zillions of planets in the universe, and the only universe in all the zillions of universes that this has ever happened. we are the very definition of improbability. the funny thing about improbable is, its not impossible”