DescentBB

CUDA wrote:as a parent I feel they should not require my child to sit through a science class that teaches evolution.

I can't believe you said that. I know I took your quote out of context, but I just can't believe you said that.
I'm glad they teach it in my school and as of yet I don't have any yellow "theory" stickers from the religious groups pasted on it. I've learned a lot from it. It has expanded my mind to read more and when I have kids, I will have good parental skills to give them a full education.

Bettina

Palzon wrote:they are advancing a philosophy that supports their own belief system at the expense of truth and knowledge. it is science under attack here, not religion.

It's not at the expense of either, in the studies I've seen. I don't know what you've encountered in that area, but I know that some churchgoers are overzealous to the point of disregarding facts, and just running with what they've been taught/read (I've been guilty of this). Some people believe it when they're told that science is at odds with the Bible, and because of their lack of knowledge they mistakenly throw science out. It's not science, but science/theories from the view-point of people who don't believe in God that is at odds with it.

Science is under attack all over the place, and even from within. Anyone who doesn't practice unbiased scientific observation is hurting it. I do not get my faith from science, however. God is not something you can look at under a microscope, or through a telescope, or any other kind of scope, but through any of these you can see awesome evidence of design. Science is not the basis for faith in God (not generally, at least), but for me it is a solid proof. I see proof of the Bible everywhere I look.

Top Gun wrote:The one thing I do want to say is that I feel that faith and science can peacefully co-exist in one's mind, that there is a fundamental difference between the teaching of evolution as a scientific theory and cornerstone of biology and the teaching of intelligent design as a philosophy on origins, and that the concept of intelligent design need not be opposed to the scientific study of evolution. Even the most compete theory of evolution that it would be humanly possible to create would by no means explain everything about how and why exactly life originated or came to be exactly as it is represented today. Certainly, evolution will never be able to explain its own greatest achievement: the development of a sentient consciousness and sense of self (a soul, if you will) in the human person. That's something that requires some thinking about, no matter what your background is.

What a great post. I too, believe every person has a soul and this is where religion should have always been, not out trying to challange every discovery being made. Religion should be a personal thing.
I really like this post a lot and printed it out to keep. Thank you.

Bettina

Bet51987 wrote:

CUDA wrote:as a parent I feel they should not require my child to sit through a science class that teaches evolution.

I can't believe you said that. I know I took your quote out of context, but I just can't believe you said that.
I'm glad they teach it in my school and as of yet I don't have any yellow "theory" stickers from the religious groups pasted on it. I've learned a lot from it. It has expanded my mind to read more and when I have kids, I will have good parental skills to give them a full education.

Bettina

Bettina, I know Cuda deosn't need defending, but I just wasnted to comment on this. Cuda, I'm sure, doesn't want his kids to be subjected to the very "brainwashing" that was talked about earlier. He is right. The kids are taught this from day one as fact, not a theory. we are never tought that this has a small or large probablility of being wrong.

I know that this sounds like a conspiracy thing, but there are organizations that are bent pn removing God from every aspect of life. They aslo have a lot of pull in Washington and sponsor text book publishers. History text books are another big sore spot with me too, but that's another thread.
*my 2 cents, out*

Top Gun wrote: Firstly, I've heard some people refer to evolution as "just a theory." I think you're confusing the general usage of the word with its scientific definition. In science, a theory is a set of principles, equations, or statements that explain a group of phenomena, have been repeatedly and thoroughly tested, and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena. Scientific theories come about only after hundreds of hours of research and experimentation and must be independently and widely verified in order to be generally accepted.

this is very very wrong. i think your semantics would make the discussion more muddled than it already is. I think a big part of the ID problem is that people do not understand science and more so - epistemology.

terminology such as "theory" or "scientific theory" is irrelevant to what the scientific method actually entails. your usage is incorrect. a scientific theory is ANY conjecture that attempts to solve some problem or explain some phenomena.

The nomenclature used to describe the theory has no bearing on the method or truth-vale of its content, except in the case of what is called a "law" (such as a gravity). However, even such "laws" remain always conjectural since it is always possible for some refutation to occur. The only reason such theories are even considered laws is because their conjectural content is not currently problematic. Newton's physics was considered scientific law until Kepler and later Einstein saw there were still unsolved problems.

What separates scientific knowledge from ordinary knowledge is that scientific theories will ALWAYS be refutable. That is what makes them scientific.

Also, you have got the methodology wrong (as have others in this thread). Science does not begin with research or observation. Science begins with problems and the need to solve them. The fact that our theories may be used as predictors is not the aim of science. The aim might better be thought of searching for truth or knowledge. Prediction is how we test our theories, not the ultimate aim.

Further, since falsifiability is the criterion of science versus pseudo-science, the scientific method is falsification, not "verification". sometimes we may speak of independent or peer review, which corroborates the tests of theory. but these independent tests will always be tests which would refute (falisify) the theory if it were incorrect.

Top Gun wrote: It's a rare thing indeed that something that reaches the level of a theory is competely and utterly overturned; while new developments may require significant additions and revisions (as Einstein's did to Newton's theory), the original theory usually holds true in at least some circumstances or situations.

wrong. theories are overturned ALL the time and some times they are major paradigm shifts. it may be relatively rare for scientific "laws" to be overturned but there have been instances in history where new theories overturned older "laws" in sensational fashion - such as the heliocentric paradigm shift.

i agree with you that people here are failing to understand the scientific method, but i do not agree with your semantics. i have never heard anyone elevate the term "theory" to some kind of higher status as if calling it a "theory" made it somehow more true. i don't think its useful to do so.

CUDA wrote: as a parent I feel they should not require my child to sit through a science class that teaches evolution.

So lets see. Your child should not study geology as that is a evolutionary study. Your child should not study archiolgy as that is a evolutionary science. Your child should not study zoology, botany or astronomy as they all have elements of evolution in them. So what would you like your children to learn?

Newton's laws are still useful as simple models that are accurate enough to explain 99.9% of things we need to explain to the level of precision we need in everyday life - hence why we keep them. It can be found that they aren't exact, but fairly close to exact, by examining the same situation with quantum mechanics ... except you need a supercomputer for that, as opposed to a pocket calculator or slide rule.

Anyway.

I consider it misleading to say either side is misinformed, or at least the more important players on either side, about the facts they base their theories on. I would however agree that both sides tend to be overly dismissive of the other.

Oh, and I don't see where archaeology, let alone astronomy, tie in with evolution. Archaeology is basically modern man with, in some cases, minor differences; astronomy ... uh, nothing evolved in space. That we've heard of, or can see with a telescope.

Archaeology DOES use radio-carbon dating, of course, and astronomy does use large time frames ... but those are different stories altogether. Geology is mostly the same story; not much of it cares about the biosphere, let alone specifics about it that would call for any evolutionary theory, but it is usually taught using large time scales again.

Duper wrote: Bettina, I know Cuda deosn't need defending, but I just wasnted to comment on this. Cuda, I'm sure, doesn't want his kids to be subjected to the very "brainwashing" that was talked about earlier. He is right. The kids are taught this from day one as fact, not a theory. we are never tought that this has a small or large probablility of being wrong.

I know that this sounds like a conspiracy thing, but there are organizations that are bent pn removing God from every aspect of life. They aslo have a lot of pull in Washington and sponsor text book publishers. History text books are another big sore spot with me too, but that's another thread.
*my 2 cents, out*

I understand, and I know there are atheist organizations that want god removed completely. I don't, because its not the right thing to do. These are the same people who want the flag removed, Santa claus, Tooth fairy, etc. Its stupid.

I was at a hospital with my dad while he was visiting a friend. There was a priest doing his rounds and I saw the comfort he was bringing to the people there. I had no inclination to jump up and say "there is no god", and admired him for what he was doing.

I sing at church and the senior home and I've seen pain up close and I've seen the comfort religion brings to them and I would not want that removed because of my beliefs. Like I said, religion needs to be a personal thing.

I'm an agnostic.....not an atheist. There is a big difference between the two, but I will stick by my guns and take creationism out of schoolbooks. The only thing I want to learn in school are things that are real and things that have a possibility of being proven. What proof can religion offer me. It is a complete waste of time in school.

I wonder if one of the reasons creationists want it taught in school is that sunday school classes are dwindling.

Bettina

Palzon wrote:The nomenclature used to describe the theory has no bearing on the method or truth-vale of its content, except in the case of what is called a "law" (such as a gravity).

It seems to me that you are confusing terms instead of us. Top Gun wrote a very accurate post.

First of all, there is no such "law" of gravity. There are no laws unless you want to label something with that term. The only thing that's certain here, is that the apple falls down from the tree. That the planets circle around the sun. There is no law there. Calling "apple goes always down, never up" a law is fine by me, but it is very flaky and imprecise. Besides, you can't prove that it will never be refuted that apples always fall down, can you? You need a formal theory which models the real world to unlock unprecedented levels of precision.

Now, Newton describes a gravitation as a force that acts on a mass inside that gravitational field. Einstein describes gravitation as the curvature of a four-dimensional space. Both things are completely different. Yet both are able to predict verifyable facts. It is true that no quantity of verified experiments will prove the theory right, but none has been refuted either. It has been established that the theory is imprecise under certain conditions. That doesn't mean it's worthless. In fact, the theory itself and the knowledge that it is in fact imprecise and under which conditions, makes it pretty sound and well-defined to me.

There is no such law in any of this.

To spin the conversation back on topic. In the world we live in, there seems to be a scientific explanation for every phenomenon. If we don't know the explanation yet, there are always grounds to believe there is in fact an explanation, we just aren't capable of seeing it yet. If life and the world was created by intelligent design, why are all the internal workings of it accessible to us? Why don't things "just happen", why aren't new beings just "created"? Why all the fuss with genetic and biologic complexity? Why not create something elegant and simple? Why are women so complicated??

Really, if we are here because of intelligent design, the designer is a cynical bastard and a retarded incapable sob to boot. No?

Tricord wrote:Really, if we are here because of intelligent design, the designer is a cynical bastard and a retarded incapable sob to boot. No?

It shows in the results!

</mobius>

I find that ID and evolution describe the same thing (generally), just one side insists there has to be a god doing it, and the other thinks that it isn't neccessary to have one around.

And to the side that screams "missing link! missing link!"...where's the Ark again? You know, the one with everything on it? Oh yea, except everything from the American continents, tho', right?

Bet51987 wrote:

Duper wrote: Bettina, I know Cuda deosn't need defending, but I just wasnted to comment on this. Cuda, I'm sure, doesn't want his kids to be subjected to the very "brainwashing" that was talked about earlier. He is right. The kids are taught this from day one as fact, not a theory. we are never tought that this has a small or large probablility of being wrong.

I know that this sounds like a conspiracy thing, but there are organizations that are bent pn removing God from every aspect of life. They aslo have a lot of pull in Washington and sponsor text book publishers. History text books are another big sore spot with me too, but that's another thread.
*my 2 cents, out*

I understand, and I know there are atheist organizations that want god removed completely. I don't, because its not the right thing to do. These are the same people who want the flag removed, Santa claus, Tooth fairy, etc. Its stupid.

I was at a hospital with my dad while he was visiting a friend. There was a priest doing his rounds and I saw the comfort he was bringing to the people there. I had no inclination to jump up and say "there is no god", and admired him for what he was doing.

I sing at church and the senior home and I've seen pain up close and I've seen the comfort religion brings to them and I would not want that removed because of my beliefs. Like I said, religion needs to be a personal thing.

I'm an agnostic.....not an atheist. There is a big difference between the two, but I will stick by my guns and take creationism out of schoolbooks. The only thing I want to learn in school are things that are real and things that have a possibility of being proven. What proof can religion offer me. It is a complete waste of time in school.

I wonder if one of the reasons creationists want it taught in school is that sunday school classes are dwindling.

Bettina

good post.

Proof? There is no "proof". Faith and true religion (i'm not speaking of hypocracy, as I tend to collate the two) is a matter of the heart. It's something that awakens and/or is killed from within.
Dwindeling Sunday school classes... I don't know if there is a way to substanciate that, but if it is true, I wouldn't be surprised and naw.. that isn't the reason. This whole issue has been an ongoing thing since the mid 70's when "secular activism" became extremely agressive. Well probably just more noticed. This really has been an issue since the late 1800's, but most notedly the 1920's.

Tricord wrote:Really, if we are here because of intelligent design, the designer is a cynical bastard and a retarded incapable sob to boot. No?

No. I think the only real cynicism in the equation is found within you. Through your posts, that's pretty obvious.

Tricord wrote:

Palzon wrote: The nomenclature used to describe the theory has no bearing on the method or truth-vale of its content, except in the case of what is called a "law" (such as a gravity).

It seems to me that you are confusing terms instead of us. Top Gun wrote a very accurate post.

First of all, there is no such "law" of gravity. There are no laws unless you want to label something with that term.

tri, read my post again. the sentence of yours i have italicized was the very point of the part of my post you have quoted. calling it a "law" does not make it irrefutable. My point is that it IS only a label.

My point is that he is elevating the term "theory" to something it does not mean that confuses the issue, just as others call something a law. it's a label nothing more, and one that is not helpful.

your post has nothing to do with what i posted.

edit: in regard to what you say about elegance vs complexity...

complexity is the very thing that ID depends on to demonstrate intelligence in the design.

Palzon wrote:complexity is the very thing that ID depends on to demonstrate intelligence in the design.

Yes but why? Why did the designer design as he did? Why did the designer even bother to design? ID doesn't answer that. Evolution theory doesn't need to.

Tricord wrote: First of all, there is no such "law" of gravity. There are no laws unless you want to label something with that term. The only thing that's certain here, is that the apple falls down from the tree. That the planets circle around the sun. There is no law there. Calling "apple goes always down, never up" a law is fine by me, but it is very flaky and imprecise. Besides, you can't prove that it will never be refuted that apples always fall down, can you? You need a formal theory which models the real world to unlock unprecedented levels of precision.

Ummm. There is a law. You can check it anywhere, but here is a link.

http://theory.uwinnipeg.ca/mod_tech/node54.html

Bettina

Sirius wrote:
Oh, and I don't see where archaeology, let alone astronomy, tie in with evolution. Archaeology is basically modern man with, in some cases, minor differences; astronomy ... uh, nothing evolved in space. That we've heard of, or can see with a telescope.

Archaeology DOES use radio-carbon dating, of course, and astronomy does use large time frames ... but those are different stories altogether. Geology is mostly the same story; not much of it cares about the biosphere, let alone specifics about it that would call for any evolutionary theory, but it is usually taught using large time scales again.

Geology shows plate tectonics where land masses drift apart and the time scale for that to happen. Geology also shows uplifting as in mountains and how fast that occurs. Geology shows sedimentary layers and by a layer being in a certain strata tells how far back in time that strata formed. Taken togeather, when a fossil is found in a earlier strata, then a similar fossil is found in the next layer and so on with the end result of ten strata covering millions of years, the final sequential fossil "similar" to the preceding layer no longer looks like the initial fossil, shows what is suspiciously a evolutionary sequence no? Combining paleotology with geology seems to me to be something that should be banned.

Tricord wrote:Why did the designer even bother to design?

he was probably bored.
what if both theories on their own are wrong, or better incomplete, and evolution came after ID?

Tricord wrote:

Palzon wrote:complexity is the very thing that ID depends on to demonstrate intelligence in the design.

Yes but why? Why did the designer design as he did? Why did the designer even bother to design? ID doesn't answer that. Evolution theory doesn't need to.

you're confusing me because you are preaching to the choir. so we're clear, i do not believe in ID. I believe that evolutionary theory is the best theory at this time in terms of explaining the origin of species. and i'm devoutly agnostic.


as far as your question above, i think that the theistic response would be that the bible has the answer. i can understand if you are criticizing god, the designer, for his workmanship. this world leaves a lot to be desired. but i think the bible believer will tell you that the worst suffering in the world is man-made, and the result of the Fall.

All this brings me back to point out how bogus it is for ID proponents to claim that advancing ID does not mean advancing religion and belief in god. I especially return to this point given what the Wedge document is all about (though no one has commented on the link yet).

Bet51987 wrote:

CUDA wrote:as a parent I feel they should not require my child to sit through a science class that teaches evolution.

I can't believe you said that. I know I took your quote out of context, but I just can't believe you said that.
I'm glad they teach it in my school and as of yet I don't have any yellow "theory" stickers from the religious groups pasted on it. I've learned a lot from it. It has expanded my mind to read more and when I have kids, I will have good parental skills to give them a full education.

Bettina

if they require a child to sit through a class that teaches evolution then they should also require that same child to sit through classes that teach creation, plain and simple to not do so is discrimination.

you say that you will have all the skills to give your children a good education. question then as an agnostic will you teach them about creation? to not do so would be depriving your children of "a full education"

woodchip wrote:

CUDA wrote: as a parent I feel they should not require my child to sit through a science class that teaches evolution.

So lets see. Your child should not study geology as that is a evolutionary study. Your child should not study archiolgy as that is a evolutionary science. Your child should not study zoology, botany or astronomy as they all have elements of evolution in them. So what would you like your children to learn?

pull your head out wood, this thread is about evolution VS creation, you knew what I meant dont play stupid

Palzon wrote: All this brings me back to point out how bogus it is for ID proponents to claim that advancing ID does not mean advancing religion and belief in god. I especially return to this point given what the Wedge document is all about (though no one has commented on the link yet).

agreed I wont even try to hide the fact that promoting creation is schools is advancing religion. but on the flip side to promote the evolution theory the way they do is to lie to the students that they teach it to, because they cannot prove that the theory they teach is true. it is said that the best lie is 99% truth, I suppose you could say that about both ways of thought then couldnt you. as neither can be proven to be true, neither should be taught in our public schools

CUDA wrote:

Palzon wrote: All this brings me back to point out how bogus it is for ID proponents to claim that advancing ID does not mean advancing religion and belief in god. I especially return to this point given what the Wedge document is all about (though no one has commented on the link yet).

as neither can be proven to be true, neither should be taught in our public schools

here is where i disagree...

evolution can be falsified. ID cannot. One is science. One is philosphy. I never said don't teach it. I said don't teach it as science. The sources I have read that discuss evolution don't try to argue that the theory is complete. yet there have been many experiments where the theory of evolution was tested and its predictions/hypotheses were not refuted.

The fact that evolution is refutable, whereas ID is not is, highly significant. Falsifiability is the very criterion of what is science vs what is pseudo-science. Further, ID believers could never admit that part of their theory is incomplete or apparently false. Believers in evolution need not adhere to their theory dogmatically, but the ID believer must. Worse than peddling bad philosophy, ID will convey a false understanding of how knowledge is furthered. If it is not capable of refutation - it is by definition not science. hence, evolution belongs in the science class and ID in the philosophy class.

edit: one last comment here. I believe that ID as a theory deserves the same commitment to erudition as any other topic. i would not want to see ID philosophy sanitized or watered down. ID thinkers can trash evolution all they want, but they need to do it from the philosophy department. Yet ID thinkers mistakenly try to convince people that it IS science - or that it has they same value as scientific knowledge.

and let me be clear. i am not saying that scientific knowledge is more valuable than spirital knowledge. i'm saying they are different orders all together. they are apples and oranges. but ID's goal is to get people to accept the orange as if it were an apple. ID is a disservice to both science and philosophy by intentionally blurring the boundaries in order to achieve a political goal. But i'm all for it having a voice in school as should all philosphy's of peace if there is sufficient interest.

Bet51987 wrote:Ummm. There is a law. You can check it anywhere, but here is a link.

http://theory.uwinnipeg.ca/mod_tech/node54.html

Bettina

Yes, that statement may always be true in absolute Euclidian, three dimensional space with infinite speed of light and absolute constant time. In that context, you might call it a "law".

But the coming of the special relativity in 1905 has shown that the universe is a relative Minkowskian, four dimensional space with finite and constant speed of light and relative time.

The general relativity in 1915 has shown that space isn't even Minkowskian because it has an inherent curbature that is dependant on the local coordinates. At best, the universe is infinitesimally Minkowskian.

Newton's law is down the drain because the context in which gravity is studied has greatly expanded. Gravity isn't even expressed with forces in Einstein's theory.

I'd like to come back to ID. If we were created, that implies our existance relates to an initial descision which must have had either a reason or a purpose. I'd like to know what it is, it's the only thing that could validate the idea of ID, so the question "why?" is not an unimportant one.

If you say (or think) our creation was solely "Gods will" or something along these lines, you're just being a fatalist. Terrorists kill innocent people with the same reasoning.

The way I see it, ID raises more questions than it answers. Due to the nature of ID, it will never be able to answer these questions, either.

CUDA wrote:

woodchip wrote:

CUDA wrote: as a parent I feel they should not require my child to sit through a science class that teaches evolution.

So lets see. Your child should not study geology as that is a evolutionary study. Your child should not study archiolgy as that is a evolutionary science. Your child should not study zoology, botany or astronomy as they all have elements of evolution in them. So what would you like your children to learn?

pull your head out wood, this thread is about evolution VS creation, you knew what I meant dont play stupid

Don't you be stupid either. At what point do you "eliminate" the teaching of evolution in all of it's myriad forms? Granted it has been a number of years since I was in high school but I don't remember any class specifically devoted to evolution. Evolution may have been stitched into a quiltwork of various science disciplines but never did it have its own class. So my question to you Cuda is how do you not teach evolution?

to the point where they teach the big bang theory and that man evolved from apes as fact. it cannot be proven and should not be taught.

CUDA wrote:to the point where they teach the big bang theory and that man evolved from apes as fact. it cannot be proven and should not be taught.

ok, evolution does not hold that man evolved from apes. evolution conjectures that man and apes had common ancestry.

Palzon wrote:

CUDA wrote:to the point where they teach the big bang theory and that man evolved from apes as fact. it cannot be proven and should not be taught.

ok, evolution does not hold that man evolved from apes. evolution conjectures that man and apes had common ancestry.

but that it not whats being taught

CUDA wrote:

Palzon wrote:

CUDA wrote:to the point where they teach the big bang theory and that man evolved from apes as fact. it cannot be proven and should not be taught.

ok, evolution does not hold that man evolved from apes. evolution conjectures that man and apes had common ancestry.

but that it not whats being taught

really? can you substantiate your claim?

When I first met BFDD, I thought he came from apes. But after I got to know him, I wasn't really sure anymore. Did someone just will him to exist and steal my fiance, or did he evolve from a large Gorilla with a big floppy donkey *bleep*.....

No way, I had that exact same experience.

Tricord wrote:

Bet51987 wrote:Ummm. There is a law. You can check it anywhere, but here is a link.

http://theory.uwinnipeg.ca/mod_tech/node54.html

Bettina

Yes, that statement may always be true in absolute Euclidian, three dimensional space with infinite speed of light and absolute constant time. In that context, you might call it a "law".

But the coming of the special relativity in 1905 has shown that the universe is a relative Minkowskian, four dimensional space with finite and constant speed of light and relative time.

The general relativity in 1915 has shown that space isn't even Minkowskian because it has an inherent curbature that is dependant on the local coordinates. At best, the universe is infinitesimally Minkowskian.

Newton's law is down the drain because the context in which gravity is studied has greatly expanded. Gravity isn't even expressed with forces in Einstein's theory.

I understand Minkowski's description of four-dimensional spacetime. Its nothing new. I only commented on your statement because you make a statement that refutes Newtons law.

I have general relativity books, and am always willing to learn so do you have a link that states that the law of gravity is no longer a law?

If you are using the word "law" loosely then there are no laws since they all break down when approaching the singularity as all laws do. Which is why Hawking is struggling to find the "theory of everything".

Bettina

CUDA wrote:to the point where they teach the big bang theory and that man evolved from apes as fact. it cannot be proven and should not be taught.

The Big Bang has observable data to indicate our universe had a central starting point. I know of no scientist that is willing to empiracally explain what caused the material to explode into existance. Teaching the theory that a central explosion occured is acceptable as it is based on real evidence. Teaching that a deity waggled his finger to create the universe is not science but religion.
As Palzon explains, no one is stating man evolved from apes but the fossil evidence shows our lineage goes back to a creature vastly different than what we are now. Both DNA and fossil records show that at some point both apes and man "may" repeat "may" have a shared ancestry. To keep such knowledge from students would be deficient and deceitful.
A second thought occurs to me is why are we trying to placate a select group (christians) of religious naysayers when I don't hear the evolutionary lament from Jews, Muslums, Hindu's or other religions? I particulary do not like one religion trying to rub it's drippy nose values on my shirt sleeve. Don't like public school then open a christian charter school and teach what you want there.

Bettina, a law is something that is universally true. However, I hope to have convinced you that multiple contexts exist in which gravity can be considered. If, for each context, you want to state laws, that's fine by me. But there is no 'law' as such that will span all the contexts and still hold.

Tricord wrote:Bettina, a law is something that is universally true. However, I hope to have convinced you that multiple contexts exist in which gravity can be considered. If, for each context, you want to state laws, that's fine by me. But there is no 'law' as such that will span all the contexts and still hold.

Newtons laws are still valid. However, If you wish to probe the realm of quantum physics, I will concede that in that strange world, laws become questionable. But so do theorys and in some cases, physics itself.

But, if I was a teacher in school, I would have to go with Newtons three laws as being accepted. I am still being taught that there are laws.

I do know where your coming from though.

Bettina

Gooberman wrote:No way, I had that exact same experience.

Sweet!! I thought I was alone on this one.....

Tricord wrote:If we were created, that implies our existance relates to an initial descision which must have had either a reason or a purpose. I'd like to know what it is, it's the only thing that could validate the idea of ID, so the question "why?" is not an unimportant one.

Nobody willing to tackle this one? I believe it's the essence of this thread.

My question is....If someone or something created us, who or what created that someone or something? Put that in your pipe and smoke it......

Look at What Mobius started again !

um ok...for an EXPERIENCE of the universe's Intelligent Design, there are ways to do this; let me offer..

http://deoxy.org/t_thc.htm

All the sematic word games and or dogmatic theory we love to flap on about will not replace the experience, the conscious experience, of our minds' place in the universe.

And there's lots more to read by Terrence Mckenna:

http://deoxy.org/t_camden.htm

I recommend printing the 28 page Camden Center article, easier to read in sections rather than to skim it online...

Tricord wrote:

Tricord wrote:If we were created, that implies our existance relates to an initial descision which must have had either a reason or a purpose. I'd like to know what it is, it's the only thing that could validate the idea of ID, so the question "why?" is not an unimportant one.

Nobody willing to tackle this one? I believe it's the essence of this thread.

Well my first reaction is...

your belief about the essence of the thread is incorrect since that would be 'whether or not ID should be taught in place of or alongside evolution'.

I agree your question is relevant otherwise, but not too relevant. Here's why...

ID presumes a designer supplied the design. Ultimately we don't have to dig too deep to find out that designer is the G-man (god for the slow ppl).

Ultimately, any moral imperative or question of purpose regarding god must be resolved deontologically rather than consequentially. In other words, If god did it - it is by definition good, proper, meaningful, etc. The reason god did it is because it was his Will to do so.

Therefore, God does not need a "reason" to do anything (unless the revelation of the reason he did something is revealed with the intent of enlightening man). The reason or purpose behind ID becomes rather academic at that point.

What remains essential to this thread, however, is whether or not ID should supplant or stand alongside evolution as science

Palzon... ! you say "Ultimately we don't have to dig too deep to find out that designer is the G-man "

.. lol at "The G-man" !... that brought to mind a float from the parade of Gay Pride Day, with a bunch of depilated guys strutting around in G-strings..?! God is a Man you say huh .?

"Dig" just deep enough, and you will be able to experience the ID of the universe. The Designer is not at all a masculine force/prescence/entity... God is feminine, and 'her' design is not a static process or blueprint.

Her 'plan' is better described as one that promotes constant change, just as we see on a geologic time scale when looking at evolutionary change in phyla and genera, species and so on.

ok EKB. I'd reply to that but I'm due back on planet Earth now.