But I don't have a lot of time and energy to continue to intelligently respond to these guys (I am entirely alone over there, you know what I mean). Besides I have to go the mountain for a few days.
Could some of you folks come and help me out. I'd appreciate it. I've read many books about ID and Creation theory, but I am no expert.
I checked out the site. Amazing that a ski equipment discussion board got on this topic. I couldn't believe how long the thread has gotten.
I'll post a few things there, but if you ever want to learn more, come here to ARN!
those guys are here if anyone really wants to follow up on an ID board.
I guess the major question we were asking when the topic started was from SkiFreek in what I think was the first post...
Seems to me that you either have to believe there is a real schism between ID proponents and Creationism as presented in the quote below, or see ID as the initial, sacrificial front in an attack on science....and really with public education as the main target.
It has been my experience that ID'ers are fronting for Creationism and will step aside in favor of it once the door has been forced open. The points made below remind me of a feigned argument with a schill, the schill being ID, rather than a real and significant difference in position between ID and Creationism.
I could be wrong....but that's my theory and I'll change it as the facts warrant!
So knowing that we have an impact on the world at large, that troops might be mustered to shut down such a seriously dangerous thing as a discussion of idealogy... I'll call the question:
Is there still a planned attack on Science teaching in our schools by proponents of Intelligent Design?
Joined: 15 Dec 2004 Posts: 9487 Location: Blue Canadian Rockies
Posted: Wed Jun 07, 2006 1:35 pm Post subject:
Your title is confusing.
Creationist Attack on Intelligent Design, Redux implies a schism in the anti-evolution camp between old school Creationists and the newer sexier Intelligent Design proponents. Is that what you want to discuss?
Or do you just want to revive the old evolution vs ID debate complete with ringers recruited from other forums?
It is impossible to discuss this topic intelligently because the ID/creationists refuse to accept anything the evolutionists offer as evidence.
Joined: 01 Jan 2006 Posts: 10847 Location: Where the wind don't blow so strange
Posted: Wed Jun 07, 2006 2:10 pm Post subject:
Leaving aside the arguable nuances of macroevolution and microevolution for now, how exactly are ID and science at odds? That is, ID at its core, really attempts to explore causation to the Cosmos (Big Bang). Science has brought us to the "beginning" (or singularity event of the Big Bang), but has yet to give us insight to causation. Of course this alone does not prove or disprove ID. As for me, I suppose if Hawking is still unsure... So am I!
Within the cosmology and astrophysics disciplines these questions and issues are less schismatic and more widely open to debate. Let's hope so here too.
I am not raising these issues/questions in the God/No-God debate that, although interesting, is not science, but philosophical in nature.
Let me also be clear, I am not at all trying to argue that ID should be taught in place of science or even with science necessarily. I'm certainly not trying to convince anyone to believe in a God, gods, goddess, or dog.
Joined: 27 Dec 2004 Posts: 2108 Location: centered, I hope.
Posted: Wed Jun 07, 2006 2:54 pm Post subject:
I asked a cosmetologist, and she thought that if you were intelligent about design you could correct male pattern baldness with a combover.
ON the issue of Intelligent design as a theory, it seems you might be mistaken on your very first point... that "ID at its core, really attempts to explore causation to the Cosmos"...
In 80 some pages of the previous debate, and in most references on line, ID does NOT attempt to determine the root causation of the universe, it very clearly is about whether or not there is a God, god, goddess, or dog. In fact the whole IDEA of Intelligent Design is to assign an Intelligence to a Designer instead of accepting random mutation and evolution as a non directed series of events.
Therefore, ID and Science are at odds, because science (for the most part) follows data to come up to conclusions, while ID starts with a conclusion (that there is an intelligent designer) and attempts to make facts fit that conclusion.
The origin of the universe question is part of the debate certainly, however, the differences between the two is not in that specific argument, but rather the way each of them are structured. IN fact, both might come to the same conclusion on any given topic.. but arrive at them in different ways.
Scientist: I see a monkey, I can test for monkeyness, I can touch the monkey (no bad jokes), therefore what is in front of me is a monkey.
ID: God created monkeys.. and that looks like a monkey in front of me, so that is a monkey. _________________ Liberte de calcaneus!
How are ID and science at odds? Keither pretty well nailed it.
In all seriousness though, at best (and this is being really charitable) ID is a one way street that goes from science to creationism. It does not bring anything to the science discussion but if one requires a little pseudo-science to connect their religious beliefs to the science of the world around them, that's totally fine with me...as long as nobody tries to pass it off as science in science class. Eg: it is a great mental trick to keep your biblical beliefs w/o having to discount scientific fact. _________________ Gruff Reformer, Freetouring Provocateur
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
All of the comments above are owned by the
poster, telemarktips.com is not responsible in any way for the
content. The views expressed by the posters are not necessarily
those of Tt.com, its management or owners. Ski safe, be happy,
rip it up, smile on your brother and sister!