Really? Intelligent design? Really!? All right, so you see some flaws with evolution, you have unanswered questions. Why would you make up another “science” that introduces even more unknowns? Science is meant to be challenged. That’s how we learn. We review, critique, tweak, and reproduce experiments. Question away, but suggest some way to find answers please. Seriously, if anyone can explain it to me, then go for it. I suppose what I’m really looking for is why some think that it is an appropriate topic to introduce in biology classrooms.
*A note from Patrick- Intelligent design makes a mockery of science. If anyone can please find me one peer reviewed article from a legitimate scientific journal that provides empirical evidence in support of Intelligent Design, then I will fall to bended knee, beg the Intelligent Designer’s forgiveness, and give up the pursuit of rational thought.
Wednesday, December 5, 2007
Dwight: Smells pretty bad doesn't it? Ryan: Uh-huh. Dwight: It's called bullcrap.
Posted by Erin at 7:53 AM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
" In crossing a heath, suppose I pitched my foot against a stone, and were asked how the stone came to be there; I might possibly answer, that, for anything I knew to the contrary, it had lain there forever: nor would it perhaps be very easy to show the absurdity of this answer. But suppose I had found a watch upon the ground, and it should be inquired how the watch happened to be in that place; I should hardly think of the answer I had before given, that for anything I knew, the watch might have always been there. (...) There must have existed, at some time, and at some place or other, an artificer or artificers, who formed [the watch] for the purpose which we find it actually to answer; who comprehended its construction, and designed its use. (...) Every indication of contrivance, every manifestation of design, which existed in the watch, exists in the works of nature; with the difference, on the side of nature, of being greater or more, and that in a degree which exceeds all computation."
– William Paley, Natural Theology (1802)
Thus the Natural World is a creation of the G O D, DUH
From a Discover interview with Newt Gingrich
Where do you come down on teaching intelligent design in schools? Do you think the ruling in the Dover, Pennsylvania, case was appropriate?
I believe evolution should be taught as science, and intelligent design should be taught as philosophy. Francis Collins's new book, The Language of God, is a fine statement that combines a belief in God with a belief in evolution. I do not know enough about the Dover case to critique the judge's decision, but I am generally cautious about unelected judges establishing community standards—that is the duty of elected officials.
Republicans against intelligent design? It's more likely than you think!
You cannot prove intelligent design the same way you would prove evolution. Science is really a method to understand our surroundings by hypothosis and experimentation leading to theories. Religion is based purely on faith. Faith is an impossible thing to prove using scientific method. It is therefore impossible to prove intelligent design (making a discussion about this very difficult as "I believe in intelligent design" is all anyone needs to say to prove their faith).
Thank you Scott for proving my point. I do not mock the idea of Intelligent Design as a faith-based enterprise but as a scientific theory. Isn't ID then just a belief in a a higher power directing things and thus bear no weight in the scientific and academic world? I do not judge those based on religious views but I do harshly judge those who try to sneak religion in the back door into things like science and government. And if ID is just a faith thing, why is it presented as a scientific theory and have its supporters compare it to the theory of evolution? Because they must believe it has scientific merits and I return to my original challenge for someone to show me data obtained by the scientific method and subjected to scientific critique that supports the "theory" of ID.
Post a Comment