Science, Creationism and Intelligent Design

ErikLaurence wrote:The death of science education in this country is going to be the end of us.

Yes, teach intelligent design.

spc wrote:Yes, teach intelligent design.

Yes....Right under the Cross in each classroom, right Stephan?

Come on Dick at least spell my name right.

No need for a cross, just a few classes studying Creationism/ID.

Which version should be taught, or should all versions be taught? Just about every religion has a version of creationism and who will teach it, the science teacher? If we want it taught well, each school will need a theologian to teach it, especially if we cover most of the major brands of creationism.

[quote="spc"]Come on Dick at least spell my name right.

I was always the first kid to sit down during school spelling B's

kootch88 wrote:Which version should be taught, or should all versions be taught? Just about every religion has a version of creationism

Teach it as a science not a religion.

spc wrote:Teach it as a science not a religion.

Yeah....Right after the scientific lecture on where the "Tooth Fairy" usually leaves the cash!

(sorry Stephen.......Couldn't pass up the line)

Devil505 wrote:Yeah....Right after the scientific lecture on where the "Tooth Fairy" usually leaves the cash!

(sorry Stephen.......Couldn't pass up the line)

That's all right, it just shows your knowledge of the subject.

spc wrote:

kootch88 wrote:Which version should be taught, or should all versions be taught? Just about every religion has a version of creationism

Teach it as a science not a religion.

As the central tenets of creationism can neither be test nor refined it is not science.

Read Kitzmiller v Dover

To quote judge jones (a GWB appointee) in his decision:

"We find that ID fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. They are: (1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980's; and (3) ID's negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community."

ErikLaurence wrote:As the central tenets of creationism can neither be test nor refined it is not science.

Read Kitzmiller v Dover

Check & Mate!

Once again, just shows your knowledge of the subject.

Just the fact that a discussion with a different scientific theory was brought to a court room shows the desperation of evolutionist trying to silence ID. Is this judge a scientist? It's really laughable.

a different scientific theory

If it can't be tested it's not a scientific theory.

ID and creationism can't be tested, it is an article of faith.

ErikLaurence wrote:ID and creationism can't be tested, it is an article of faith.

With that ridiculous statement, nether can evolution.

Our founding fathers believed,read the Declaration of Independence.

ErikLaurence wrote:

spc wrote:

kootch88 wrote:Which version should be taught, or should all versions be taught? Just about every religion has a version of creationism

Teach it as a science not a religion.

As the central tenets of creationism can neither be test nor refined it is not science.

Read Kitzmiller v Dover

To quote judge jones (a GWB appointee) in his decision:

"We find that ID fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. They are: (1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980's; and (3) ID's negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community."

And evolution has no failures of its own? Ask the brilliant scientists how and more interestingly, why the eye developed. It will leave you in stitches. From a Time rag article the best explanation was a prehistoric animal sensed danger through a thin spot in its skin, so ever millions of years, (even though most times the creature was eaten of course) the most impossibly complex part of our body then evolved. What a *censored* joke! Another good one I heard was why are the flowers colorful? From a scientist now, "They are colorful because they sensed that the hummingbirds are attracted to the more colorful ones to over millions of years they all became colorful"!!! Oh the handstands these "brilliant" minds will go through to try to prove there is no one out there in all the realms of space that might be smarter than them. Yup, that's the BS science I want my kid learning in school. I think not. Home school worked out very well for us. And yes to answer your next question my son is doing very well in college. He was the only one in class to point out to the teacher (after he was forced to watch it) that Al Gore's movie was banned in the UK because it had so many falsehoods. Teacher was clueless.

And evolution has no failures of its own? Ask the brilliant scientists how and more interestingly, why the eye developed. It will leave you in stitches. From a Time rag article the best explanation was a prehistoric animal sensed danger through a thin spot in its skin, so ever millions of years, (even though most times the creature was eaten of course) the most impossibly complex part of our body then evolved. What a *censored* joke! Another good one I heard was why are the flowers colorful? From a scientist now, "They are colorful because they sensed that the hummingbirds are attracted to the more colorful ones to over millions of years they all became colorful"!!! Oh the handstands these "brilliant" minds will go through to try to prove there is no one out there in all the realms of space that might be smarter than them. Yup that the BS science I want my kid learning in school. I think not.

You have just made my argument for me.

Science is an iterative process.

You make observations. You create a theory that explains the observations. You gather more data. You refine the theory. Repeat the process.

If you can't test the theory, it is an article of faith.