Teacher Excused from 'Intelligent Design'

Post Reply New Topic

Bec and to all of You:

None of You seems to be able to get passed the word (God).

None of You can take the words (Intelligent Design) for what they Truly mean.

I know how Science works and it processes:

Observation--> Data Collection--> Hypothesis--> Test--> Conclusion--> Theory

Maybe none of You could get passed a Christian being a Scientist even.

And Bec using "God did it"

Is not a:

COP-OUT

AND IT IS NOT BEING:

INGORANT OR LAZY

For I am not ingorant or lazy.

LoL, you do not get it do you?

even if there was a god who created everything, we would want to understand how he done it and why and then do it our selves, we tear apart what we do not know or understand until we do understand and know all about it, see, we not only want to understand, but we want to play god to, , and no one is going to tell us we cant when we can and science allows us to do so.

Yes we like to play God. We create many things in our lives, have been doing that from the beginning of time. We learn more everyday to create new things in our lives. That is apart of "Intelligent Design".

If You look at everything around living animals I see a Intelligence that made and let them adapt to their environment so they could live life.

It seems that You all see a Right Wring Christian Conspiracy in this.

What do you mean none of us seem to be able to get past the word (God)? That doesn't make any sense to me. What are you trying to say?

I know exactly what the words intelligent design mean.

Intelligent design is philosophy and theology. Intelligent design is not science, nor should it be treated as such. Seeing as intelligent design is not science, it does not belong in a science classroom.

That is all that I have been saying.

Bec

Maybe you can not get passed that God maybe the Intelligent Designer that is how I see it. Not just a CREATIONIST would see it, I see beyond that IDEA. A Intelligence may have created the universe, galaxies, stars, planets, animals, and even humans.

I saw the WORDS Intelligent Design JUST THE WORDS not as a science, philosophy, theology, or any other thing else. I took what the WORDS MEANT ONLY and USED THEM THAT WAY ONLY.

I can care a less what some right wring Christians are doing by making it a science or philosophy.
Or it to be in a classroom.

This is not a cop-out or being ignorant or being lazy these things you said where almost a personal attack, I well though leave it there.

I agree that a personal belief in an intelligent designer is not lazy or ignorant kevv729 - many people believe that there may have been a guiding hand in the ordering of the world. Science is an attempt to explain HOW the world is ordered through empirical observation and analysis, largely ignoring the question of WHO. To me this is the problem with ID as 'science' - it isn't science and as a non-scientific perspective shouldn't be presented as science. I understand that this was not the issue you were arguing, whether there is a higher power ordering the universe is not the issue here for me. If I offended you I didn't intend to.

I tentatively think something had a guiding hand in forming the universe. I believe in God, too.



This thread is about intelligent design in relation to science. I thought you were treating it as a science. If I am wrong, I apologise.



That was not a personal attack. I wasn't even talking about you. I don't think you are lazy, ignorant, or making cop-outs. I am sorry if I offended you.

kevv729?
I have a low opinion of right wing fundamentalists. I admit it, I mention them regularly in posts and can never force a compliment.
Please accept that that has nothing at all to do with christianity. I even accept that Intelligent Design can be taught, in the appropriate classes. Revealed knowledge is very different from scientific knowledge which is testable, it relies on what Karl Popper called Falsifiability, ie if you can prove it wrong it isn't valid. No one (I hope) would say you, on a personal level should not believe in anything you want to, but if you start to lobby the education authorites to get your personal beliefs taught in schools as fact then we all have a right to object.
The theory of gravitation that Newton came up with has served well for a couple of hundred years and he was a christian. Now these people have come up with a Theory of Intelligent Falling, because Newton didn't give answers he didn't have, he left his theory with a statement of fact and stuck with what he could prove, or thought he could prove. Since God wasn't mentioned the fundamentalists have taken it upon themselves to cram mentions into a theory that will always be beyond proof until we can prove there is or isn't a God. Is that an advance?
Short history of the modern argument from design here http://www.skepdic.com/design.html , it is partisan, sorry (written from a skeptics point of view, but I'm sure you will be able to filter the parts you want).
I don't think anyone was criticising you, or, belittling anyones personal belief, sometimes we just get too lost in the details.

Thanks!!

This is how I see science, Science is Subjective why because We are doing the Science. We interrupt the findings ourselves, make to become what we want them to become. Science is not prefect because we are doing the science. WE may have more knowledge today than the Scientist of yesterday. Science and Understanding is always changing and in this century even more faster than we can keep up with it. Science is a Branch of Learning to gain Understanding to gain Knowledge. That is truly Science in its purest form.

This is how I see theory. Is a method that we observe, through observation, we interrupt the data of our observations, then we hypothesises the data, we then test the hypothesis to a conclusion of understanding and knowledge, then we come up with our theory.

Many Theories have been debunked over the years, or so scientist could not accept a theory remember science is subjective.

Example Theory

Many learned men of old thought the earth was flat, today we know the earth is not flat, but it is round. This theory was believed for many centuries on the earth was it not. It could still be flat and held up by Atlas. Some theories may be around for years or decades or even centuries to come, and yet maybe debunked one day. Who really knows what tomorrows Science will see.

I hope this explains how I see Science and Theory

you may as well just as ask "How could God create himself???". One way or another, you've got the same dillema.

The key difference between faith and science is that the former defines the 'truth', while the latter builds theories which are refined and adapted to better fit what we observe. If you want to invoke so called Intelligent Design, you can not ask who created the creator - it is an act of faith, not a scientific theory that can be explored, refined, or refuted.

I fail to see why there has to be a reason that the universe was 'created', at least in the context in which people seem to be using the word 'reason'. It seems somewhat anothropomorphic to assume that something as decidedly strange as the coming in to exsitence of everything that we know (and of which humans are but an infinitesimal speck in the Cosmos) has to have a decidedly human reason for happening.

Actually, over 2000 years ago some Greek bloke had calculated the earth's circumference to within a few percent of the modern value. To be honest, it ain't that difficult to figure out that it's not flat, particularly if you're a mariner.

Anyway, that's off the point, but does demonstrate what Mark says:



Even the flat earth model is suitable for many things today, and to say the earth is "round", or spherical, is far from accurate, but suffices as a model for certain other purposes; as does the further refinement of describing it as an ellipsoid. I think most scientific "facts" are qualified in some way or other; so, when they're updated, it doesn't "debunk" those they replace. The problem with bringing God into this — and intelligent design is just an euphemism in that respect, as is your allusion to some other non-divine entity — is that it hinders that process of refinement and adaptation that Mark mentions. It allows people to be intellectually lazy, and more importantly to be controlled and manipulated by those with nefarious intent.

Mark

"How could God create him???"
If you go to the Bible God says he has always been alone. That though is his dilemma, and if he wants to explain it to us that is up to him to do.

As I see faith yes it defines the truth, and yes science can build upon it as well. Science is observation for what we see and comprehend . Both faith and science builds knowledge of what we see and do in our lives that in the end gives us understanding of it.

It is anothropomorphic in this way we were created in his image. He creates US, because he want to share with US, and US to share with HIM. WE are more and not a infintesimal speak to HIM but are apart of HIM.

That how I see it.

Your outline of the way you perceive science, there is no claim by science to have all the answers or to being perfect. It is just a method and collection of data when it comes right down to it, and if you are looking for absolute certainty, it isn't the place to go. Science (or at least the idealised form discussed here) does its best to disprove itself, come up with alternative explanations and cast doubt on what we think we know. If we don't/can't know then science is silent. You do get those that will try to stretch things to explain, but they are the scientific fundamentalists. Anthropomorphism is as much a fact of life as the construction of the human eye, or inability to hear many frequencies, we can only work with what we have, but in doing so hope to build a better understanding. everyone else has already said most of the other stuff. If you like Isaac Asimov, he wrote an essay called "the Relativity of Wrong" which takes some of what ascan said a bit farther.

ascan

If have watched Carl Sagan Cosmos sorry say he was Egyptian living in Alexandra Egypt. Though I wont argue with you on this. We did had scientists back that discovered it, it is even stated in the Bible too.

Even a Intellent Designer is a Scientist (God), and if he is a scientist as well as we are then he would not hinder the process of refinement and adaptation that we have made in sciences. Even he most likely know science better than us.

This is not:

Allusion of mine

This is how I see it

Science isn't science if its secret. It has to be open for peer review, it has to be proven and it has to be open to the possibility of being disproven. If this isn't the case then you are asking people to accept on faith.
The main difference between Newton and the others of his day was that he was open-minded enough not to accept unproven dogma, so that while they were sitting with map and compass trying to discover where the Ark came to rest, he was making history.
It didn't change his faith in God.
Almost forgot. A bit of parody to lighten the subject.
http://www.democracymeansyou.com/articl ... php?ID=382

jb814

I do not claim that Science has all the answers. I am not looking for any absolutes in any ways or certainties.

I know Science tries to disprove itself, and cast doubt upon itself, and comes up with alternative explainations.

Yes Science builds Understanding.

I never said Science is a Secret.

I am not asking Anyone or Anybody to Accept Science on faith.

This is how I see it.